Laura R. Johnson

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and two individuals applied for a declaration that the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, which ended a five-week college strike, infringed their freedom of association rights under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought damages.

The Crown in Right of Ontario and the College Employer Council argued the Act did not infringe the Charter or was justified under section 1.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Act did not substantially interfere with meaningful collective bargaining, as the parties were at an impasse.

Alternatively, the court held that even if there was an infringement, it was justified under section 1, given the pressing and substantial objective of resuming college instruction, the rational connection of the legislation, its minimal impairment (by substituting a neutral arbitration process), and its proportionality.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence (cocaine, money, cell phones) seized incident to his arrest, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arresting officer's testimony unreliable and incredible, concluding that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and failed to promptly inform the accused of the reasons for his arrest.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest was unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference to establish supervised access to her children and to obtain a section 30 CLRA assessment.

The court denied the urgent motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the urgency test, particularly given the long period of no contact with the children and the lack of evidence regarding available supervisory services or assessors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues were not urgent as defined by the Notices to the Profession and lacked practical feasibility.