J. Smith

The accused was convicted after a jury trial of abducting a child contrary to a custody order under s. 282(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender sent his four‑year‑old child to Iran and failed to comply with a Canadian court order granting interim custody to the mother, resulting in the child remaining outside Canada for approximately twelve years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence given the deliberate disregard of a custody order and the severe impact on the custodial parent who was deprived of contact with the child throughout his formative years.

Aggravating factors included the planned nature of the abduction, concealment of the child in a non‑Hague Convention country, and the offender’s criminal record.

The court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault and robbery.

The victim was a stranger whom the accused contacted by phone and met at a subway station.

In a stairwell, the accused used threats and force to attempt sexual intercourse with the victim, and subsequently stole her cell phone.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months in custody less credit for pre-sentence custody, plus three years probation, along with ancillary orders including a SOIRA order for 20 years and a weapons prohibition for 10 years.

The court balanced aggravating factors including the use of threats, the compounding robbery, and high risk for sexual recidivism against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, youthful first offender status, and family support.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for allegedly running a red light.

The court found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's driving was normal apart from the disputed intersection turn, he exhibited no signs of impairment such as unsteadiness, and the only indicators were odour of alcohol and red eyes.

The court determined there were no objectively reasonable grounds for arrest for impaired driving, rendering the breath demand unlawful.

Consequently, the refusal to provide a breath sample was not an offence.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The union filed a grievance regarding the quantum of damages owed to employees after the employer breached the collective agreement during a divestment process.

The board previously found that the employer failed to include seniority protection for lay-off and promotion in job offers to divested employees.

The union argued damages should be based on length of service, while the employer argued for nominal or no damages.

The arbitrator held that the loss of opportunity to choose work with seniority protection was compensable and awarded damages calculated by multiplying two weeks' salary by each grievor's years of service, plus interest.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.

Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing they had a significant financial interest in the outcome.

The arbitrator denied the applications for standing, finding that the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a commercial contractor and did not confer a legal entitlement to participate in the hearing, as they asserted no legal claim conflicting with the union's grievance under labour law.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.