J. Fregeau

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant municipality for damages after its bid for a municipal contract was rejected unopened.

The municipality rejected the bid pursuant to a by-law prohibiting bids from contractors involved in active litigation with the municipality (a reprisal policy).

The court held that the reprisal policy was an implied term of the tendering contract (Contract A) based on the presumed intention of the parties and the need for business efficacy.

Consequently, the plaintiff's bid was non-compliant, and the municipality did not breach the contract by rejecting it.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate with the parties' two children from Thunder Bay to Ottawa, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that the children expressed a clear preference to move with her.

The court granted the temporary relocation order, adjusted the father's parenting time and child support, but dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making responsibility.

The applicant challenged the constitutional validity of s. 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, which disentitles committee members from claiming parliamentary privilege in proceedings arising from the disclosure of protected information.

The applicant argued that parliamentary privilege is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be abrogated by ordinary legislation without a constitutional amendment.

The court agreed, finding that s. 12 exceeds Parliament's authority to define privilege under s. 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and its amending powers under s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 12 was declared ultra vires.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) seeking to extend the timeline to set the action down for trial.

The action, involving allegations of historic physical and sexual abuse while in foster care, had been delayed for over five years without examinations for discovery being completed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, particularly a 26-month period where the action was held in abeyance while former counsel contemplated a class proceeding.

The motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff, a 20-year employee, went on stress leave and never returned to work after her employer hired an individual who had sexually harassed her 12 years earlier.

The plaintiff sued for constructive dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court dismissed the tort claim, finding that while the employer's conduct was flagrant and outrageous, it was not calculated to produce harm.

However, the court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed because the employer's dismissive response to her concerns made continued employment intolerable.

The plaintiff was awarded 12 months' pay in lieu of notice and $100,000 in Honda damages for the employer's insensitive conduct.