Jeremy Wright

The appellant construction company sued the respondent city for alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after discovering asbestos at a work site.

The motions judge granted summary judgment to the city, finding the appellant failed to prove it suffered actual damages and refusing to grant declaratory relief for hypothetical future claims by employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's claims for administrative and legal costs lacked evidentiary support, and agreeing that declaratory relief was inappropriate where the dispute had yet to arise and could affect third-party rights.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that set aside the administrative dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The court applied the two-part test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the Reid principles.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court screened a self-represented plaintiff's action against numerous corporate, individual, and police defendants under rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the guidance in Gao and the jurisprudence defining frivolous and vexatious proceedings, the court found the statement of claim unintelligible, unsupported by any reasonable grounds, and constituting an abuse of process.

The court held that any proposed summary judgment motion would be doomed to fail and that requiring the defendants to respond would waste court resources.

The action was dismissed, the Registrar was directed to accept no further filings from the plaintiff in the action, and no costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to compel the City of Ottawa and provincial politicians to disclose information regarding the transit system and the Presto Card.

The motion judge found the court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not exhausted his remedies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the application was premature and quashed the appeal, noting it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal absent leave.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The application was previously deferred pending a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act.

After the Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the applicant's appeal, the applicant sought to reactivate the application.

The respondent requested continued deferral as it had appealed the OCPC decision to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the Divisional Court appeal.

Following a finding that the respondent hospital failed to accommodate the applicant's disability to the point of undue hardship, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal declined to order reinstatement, finding no conclusive evidence of a permanent position meeting her restrictions.

The applicant was awarded $17,767.85 for lost wages, $1,728.00 for mitigation expenses, $1,489.27 for dental benefits, and $15,000.00 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Requests for public interest remedies were dismissed.

The applicant, a female dispatcher in the Communications Division of the City of Brockville Fire Department, alleged sex discrimination against her employer and union regarding differences in wages, experience pay, breaks, and scheduling compared to firefighters in other divisions.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the equal wages claim was beyond the scope of the original complaint.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the differences in benefits were based on classification and function, not sex, and dismissed the applications due to insufficient evidence of discrimination.

The appellant's vehicle was seized by police as proceeds of crime and held under a detention order.

The appellant, claiming to be an innocent third party, commenced a civil action to recover the vehicle and seek damages for its detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the action, agreeing that the Criminal Code provisions for innocent third party remedies constitute a complete code, precluding parallel civil proceedings absent allegations of actionable police misconduct.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay a real estate commission to the respondent broker for the sale of a municipal property.

The trial judge found the parties had an oral agreement that a commission was payable, but disagreed on the rate, and applied section 34(2) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act to set the rate at the generally prevailing community rate of 3.75 percent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion of an oral agreement and agreeing that section 34(2) was correctly applied to resolve the dispute over the rate.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against the Ottawa Police Service.

The claim arose from her eviction by the sheriff, who called the police for assistance in gaining entry and removing her.

The Court of Appeal found that the police acted under lawful authority and there was no evidence to support the appellant's allegation of theft.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.