7 total
Plaintiff ordered to deliver productions and attend discovery in long-delayed 2015 action.
The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to deliver copies of his schedule A productions and to attend an examination for discovery.
The plaintiff sought an adjournment due to late service of the motion materials, which was denied given the age of the 2015 action and the need to move it forward.
The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the motion was premature, that the defendant had waived its right to discovery, or that a notice of examination was required.
The plaintiff was ordered to provide electronic copies of his productions and attend an examination for discovery.
Wrongful dismissal Motion granted
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to amend his statement of claim to include constructive dismissal allegations, specific document productions, withdrawal of a jury notice, and dispensation from mandatory mediation.
The court partially granted leave to amend the statement of claim, allowing some new paragraphs while denying others deemed irrelevant or vexatious.
Specific document productions were largely ordered, including the HR file, EI decision, and relevant Executive Committee minutes, but a prosecutorial viability opinion was deemed privileged.
The motion to withdraw the jury notice was granted, but the request to dispense with mandatory mediation was denied.
Application for judicial review of ongoing professional discipline proceedings dismissed as premature.
The applicant sought judicial review of ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the principle that judicial review should generally await the completion of administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that the referral to the Discipline Committee complied with the Professional Engineers Act and that disclosure issues should be addressed in the related civil proceedings.
Request for reconsideration denied where applicant provided no explanation for failing to attend hearing.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference call hearing.
The request was filed more than 30 days after the decision and provided no explanation for his failure to participate in the hearing.
The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Judicial review dismissed; arbitrator reasonably found employer violated collective agreement by reclassifying accommodated nurse to part-time.
The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award which found it had violated the Collective Agreement by changing a registered nurse's status from full-time to part-time.
To accommodate her disability, the nurse worked half her hours in her previous bargaining unit position and half in a non-bargaining unit administrative position.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the Collective Agreement, in light of the employer's duty to accommodate, was reasonable.
Two-day suspension for bus driver who ran a red light upheld despite unenforceable automatic penalty policy.
The union grieved a two-day suspension imposed on a bus driver who received a red light camera offence notice.
The employer had recently implemented a policy mandating an automatic two-day suspension for such offences, departing from its previous practice of issuing little or no discipline.
The arbitrator found that while the employer was entitled to implement a stricter policy to address safety concerns, the automatic penalty provision was unenforceable as it removed management's discretion to consider individual circumstances.
However, upon reviewing the specific facts of the grievor's case, including his speeding, the length of time the light was red, and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator concluded that the two-day suspension was a just and reasonable penalty.
The grievance was dismissed.
