Joanna Birenbaum

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision striking down the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, which eliminated TTC employees' right to strike and replaced it with binding interest arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the complete ban on strikes violates the employees' right to meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court further found that the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s. 1, as it did not demonstrate that the complete ban was minimally impairing or that its salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the workers' Charter rights.

Canada brought a Request for Direction seeking approval of its proposal to archive copies of certain Non-Claim Records from the Independent Assessment Process with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the Assembly of First Nations responded with some objections, particularly regarding the redaction of personal information.

The court approved Canada's proposal, finding it consistent with the legal framework governing government document retention, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and previous court orders, while deferring the issue of Static Reports to a future Request for Direction.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) brought a motion to be added as a party to a pending Request for Direction concerning the disposition of 'non-claim records' held by the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion, arguing that the NCTR's participation should be deferred until jurisdictional issues were resolved.

The court granted the NCTR's motion, finding that it had a direct interest in the disposition of the records and could provide unique evidence regarding its archival practices, and declined to bifurcate the proceedings.

The defendant union brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim on the basis of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff, a former union local president, alleged that statements made in a pamphlet distributed at an annual general meeting were defamatory.

The court found that the statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege, as the union executive had a duty to respond to the plaintiff's ongoing criticisms and inform members of the local's history.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of express malice to defeat the privilege, and granted the summary judgment motion.

Independent Counsel brought a Request for Directions seeking an order imposing strict privacy conditions on the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding documents transferred from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

They argued the Centre was bound by the same federal privacy legislation as the Commission under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the Centre is not a federal government institution and is appropriately governed by Manitoba's privacy legislation and the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Act, which strike an appropriate balance between truth-telling and privacy.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Independent Assessment Process brought a Request for Direction regarding the notice program for the disposition of highly confidential records.

The court previously ordered the destruction of these records subject to a 15-year retention period during which claimants could choose to archive them at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to order Canada to fund the participation of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Representatives, and the NCTR in the notice program.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Class Proceedings Act and its inherent supervisory powers, and ordered Canada to provide funding, albeit at reduced amounts reflecting the organizations' limited roles.

A motion sought to add the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation as a party, or alternatively as an intervenor, to a request for directions brought by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning document production obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving party argued that because the Commission’s mandate was nearing expiry, it might become responsible for receiving and archiving documents produced under any order.

The court held that the repository’s role under the settlement agreement was distinct from the Commission’s document‑collection mandate and that its presence was not necessary for the court to adjudicate the issues.

The court further held that the moving party had not demonstrated a direct interest or that its participation would enhance the court’s determination of the request for directions.

Both joinder and intervention were refused.

A motion was brought for leave to intervene as an added party in two Requests for Direction concerning the disposition of Independent Assessment Process records created under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The proposed intervenor, the National Research Centre hosted by the University of Manitoba, argued that it had a direct interest because it might be tasked with archiving the records and could assist the court on privacy and archival practices.

Several Catholic organizations opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the applicant should participate only as a friend of the court.

The court held that it retained ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of the class action settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the settlement agreement.

The court found the applicant met the criteria for intervention and that its participation would assist the court.