John Wesley Royce May

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) removed 229 dogs from the applicants' commercial dog sledding business and issued a statement of account for over $1.1 million for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the account to approximately $505,000, disallowing transportation and veterinary costs and reducing boarding costs.

Both the applicants and the CAWI brought applications for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both applications, finding that the Board's allocation of the initial evidentiary burden to the CAWI, its refusal to admit fresh evidence, and its determinations regarding the various costs were all reasonable.

An appeal from a Divisional Court decision upholding a Tribunal award of damages to a farm equipment dealer against a manufacturer/distributor for improper non-renewal of a dealership agreement.

The core issue concerned the retrospective application of Ontario Regulation 123/06 (Dealership Agreements Regulation) to an existing dealership agreement and the proper interpretation of the mandatory renewal provisions.

The manufacturer provided notice of non-renewal under the original agreement terms, but the Tribunal found this non-compliant with the Regulation's mandatory process requiring disclosure of all reasons for non-renewal and an opportunity for the dealer to respond.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's liability findings and damages award, dismissed the manufacturer's appeal, and allowed the dealer's cross-appeal on costs by restoring the Tribunal's costs award that had been quashed by the Divisional Court.

In an ongoing appeal under the Farm Implements Act, the Tribunal ruled on discovery undertakings and refusals from both parties.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent manufacturer to answer questions regarding its interpretation of the legislation and contract to avoid trial by ambush, and to fulfill several specific undertakings related to market share, meeting notes, and communications.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant dealer to produce other dealer agreements to provide context on its familiarity with warranty and performance terms, but declined to order answers to questions outside the parties' direct knowledge.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it failed to properly represent him regarding threats from students and systemic discrimination by the school administration.

The applicant also raised a constitutional question, arguing the Board's standard for assessing union liability under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act was too low and violated the Charter.

The Board rejected the constitutional challenge, finding its test for arbitrariness was appropriate.

While the Board expressed concern over the union's initial handling of the applicant's complaints and its misunderstanding of its representational role, it ultimately dismissed the application.

The Board found the union did not violate section 74, as the immediate student issues had been resolved by the administration before the union could intervene, and the applicant had waited too long to report the alleged systemic discrimination incidents.

The respondent school board applied for an order of costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after several allegations in a human rights complaint were dismissed.

The Board of Inquiry found that while a partial dismissal of a complaint satisfies the jurisdictional pre-condition for awarding costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, the dismissed allegations were not trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Commission's conduct of the case did not cause undue hardship to the respondent.

The application for costs was dismissed.

This is a decision on remedies following a finding that the respondent school boards discriminated against the complainant and subjected him to reprisals in two job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the successor school boards to pay special damages for wage loss and relocation expenses, general damages for loss of the right to freedom from discrimination, and damages for mental anguish.

The Board also ordered public interest remedies, including the posting of the decision, the development of recruitment policies incorporating reprisal protection, and notice to the complainant of future vacancies.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after being denied two positions as Assistant Superintendent for a new French-language school board.

The Board of Inquiry found that in the first competition run by the Metro Board, the complainant was denied the position as a reprisal for having filed a previous human rights complaint.

In the second competition run by CÉFCUT, the Board found that the selection process was tainted by discrimination on the basis of place of origin, as some committee members were predisposed against the complainant because he was not a Franco-Ontarian.

However, the ultimate selection decision in the second competition was not discriminatory, as the successful candidate was chosen based on superior experiential qualifications.

The complaint was upheld in part.