Karen R. Spector

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Mental Health Legal Committee brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an upcoming appeal concerning the constitutionality of the involuntary detention provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The appellant supported the motions, while the respondent Crown and mental health facility opposed them, arguing the proposed interventions would be duplicative or raise new issues.

The Court of Appeal granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners had special expertise, would make useful contributions without duplicating the appellant's arguments, and that the new legal arguments raised did not require fresh evidence or cause prejudice to the respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order compelling her to undergo a further psychiatric assessment under s. 79(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act.

She had previously been found incapable and was under guardianship, but brought an application to terminate the guardianship supported by new assessments indicating she was now capable.

The responding party successfully moved for a further assessment, which the motion judge granted without reasons.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order as it may not have appropriately balanced the individual's autonomy against the state's duty to protect the vulnerable, and noting the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant, a woman of colour, sued her former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging racial discrimination.

The motions judge struck paragraphs of her statement of claim that alleged systemic discrimination against employees of colour, holding that only discriminatory acts directed specifically at the appellant could be pleaded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no principled basis to distinguish between direct discrimination and systemic discrimination for the purpose of pleading discriminatory conduct to support a wrongful dismissal claim.

The appellants, a commercial printer and its president, refused to print letterhead and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives due to the president's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

A Board of Inquiry found this constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and ordered the appellants to provide printing services to gays, lesbians, and their organizations.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the finding of discrimination but found the Board's order overly broad, as it could compel the printing of materials directly conflicting with the president's core religious beliefs.

The Court amended the order to exempt the appellants from printing materials that reasonably conflict with the core elements of the president's religious beliefs, while affirming the order in all other respects.

The plaintiff was charged under section 159 of the Criminal Code, a provision previously declared unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

After the charges were withdrawn, the plaintiff sued the Attorney General of Canada, alleging negligence and Charter breaches for failing to repeal the unconstitutional provision.

The Attorney General moved to strike the claim, which was initially dismissed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that a legislative body cannot be held liable in tort for exercising or failing to exercise its legislative power, and that the claim was not justiciable.