Jessica Jean Barrow

The appellant union brought a defamation action against the respondents over a television broadcast and newspaper column suggesting the union supported terrorism and Hamas.

The trial judge found the statements defamatory but dismissed the action, upholding the defences of fair comment, responsible communication, and statutory privilege.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, concluding that the statements were recognizable as opinions based on known facts, could be honestly held, and were not made with malice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to dismiss him due to disability under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the appeal under s. 47(5) should proceed as a hearing de novo or an appeal on the record.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Commission concluded that the legislature intended for a full evidentiary hearing to take place before the Board, and that the appeal to the Commission must proceed on the record of the Board's proceeding.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) sued Quebecor Media Inc., Sun Media Corporation, TVA Group Inc., Jerry Agar, and Avi Benlolo for defamation.

The claim arose from statements published in print and broadcast media in 2014, alleging that CUPW and its members were terrorist sympathizers and supported Hamas, following a demonstration where CUPW flags were seen near a Hamas flag.

The court addressed CUPW's standing as an unincorporated association to sue for defamation, finding it had standing.

The court then examined the defamatory meaning of the impugned statements and the defendants' defences of truth, fair comment, responsible communication, and statutory privilege.

The court found that the defendants successfully established the defence of fair comment, as their opinions were honestly held and based on a sufficient factual substratum, and also discharged their duty of responsible communication and statutory privilege.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his discharge under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Waterloo Police Association (WRPA) and the Police Association of Ontario (PAO) brought motions to intervene in the appeal, and the Chief of Police sought to confirm his status as a respondent.

The Commission granted intervenor status to the PAO as amicus and to the WRPA with participatory rights to be determined.

The Commission also confirmed the Chief of Police as a respondent on the appeal, noting his full participation in the proceeding below, without deciding whether his participation below was proper.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that it had the right to early terminate a commercial lease and an order for the respondent tenant to vacate.

The lease, originally from 1994, had been extended and amended multiple times.

The dispute centered on whether a landlord's early termination right, present in previous lease iterations and linked to the tenant's right of first refusal, continued to apply under the most recent "Lease Amendment and Extension Agreement" from 2016, which did not explicitly mention the provision.

The court found that the landlord failed to demonstrate a continuing right of early termination during the current lease term (2022-2027), as the specific language of the agreements limited this right to particular renewal terms that had expired.

The application was dismissed, allowing the tenant to remain in occupation until the lease's expiry in 2027.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for assaulting a youth in a hospital.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in reopening the hearing to admit prior judicial commentary about his conduct, misapplied those findings as aggravating factors, and failed to properly consider his diagnosis of and rehabilitation from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in his use of the prior judicial commentary as substantive evidence of misconduct and failed to adequately analyze the extensive medical evidence regarding the appellant's PTSD and rehabilitative potential.

A new penalty hearing before a different Hearing Officer was ordered.

This appeal concerns the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, in a defamation action arising from negative online reviews posted by a client against contractors.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the public interest in the expression outweighed the harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by unduly focusing on SLAPP hallmarks, failing to adequately consider reputational harm, and not qualitatively assessing the value of the respondent's vitriolic expression.

The Court conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that the significant harm to the appellants' professional reputations outweighed the minimal public interest in the malicious and scurrilous statements, reinstating the defamation action.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Belleville Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension to serve a notice of hearing respecting misconduct allegations.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing the application was filed outside the 30-day time limit and was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court held that the decision to extend the time was interlocutory and that courts are reluctant to intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant's argument regarding procedural fairness and inadequate reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying intervention.

The appellant, a police inspector, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct for using discriminatory and insulting language during a recruitment interview with a South Asian candidate.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer applied the wrong legal test, erred in credibility assessments, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied an objective test to determine the language was offensive to community standards, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied the standard of clear, convincing, and weighty evidence.

The respondent police service brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order regarding certain exhibits, transcripts, and factum references from a police disciplinary hearing.

The materials contained highly sensitive intelligence information obtained from a confidential informant, as well as personal and criminal histories of non-parties.

Applying both the common law test from Donovan v. Sherman Estate and section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019, the Commission found that the privacy interests of the non-parties and the need to protect confidential informants outweighed the open court principle.

The motion for a sealing order was granted.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a national policy grievance.

The grievance alleged the employer's policy regarding the transfer of employees with permanent partial disabilities violated the collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator breached procedural fairness due to a five-year delay in rendering the decision and by relying on a provision of the collective agreement not raised by the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delay did not cause significant prejudice and the arbitrator was entitled to consider the entire collective agreement.

The court also held the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the duty to accommodate was reasonable.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a municipal by-law that disbanded the local police force in favour of contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The applicant argued the municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness during the consultation process and that the decision was tainted by bias and bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing but dismissed the application.

The court held that the municipality's legislative decision required a lower level of procedural fairness, which was met through public meetings, online engagement, and deputations, and found no evidence of bias or bad faith among the municipal councillors.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from negotiations for the purchase of a steam turbine generator for a co‑generation project.

The plaintiffs alleged that a binding contract arose from a purchase order and letter of intent and that the moving defendant participated in the negotiations and misrepresented issues affecting the project.

The moving party argued no contract was ever concluded and that any dealings were solely with a related corporate entity.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, including the role of the moving defendant in negotiations, whether contractual relations were formed, and whether misrepresentations or unjust enrichment occurred.

Given the complex factual matrix and credibility issues, summary judgment was inappropriate.