David Bannon

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that the affidavit evidence could be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record, as the Tribunal had declined to provide a transcript without a court order.

The court directed the parties on the process for seeking production of the transcript.

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the affidavit evidence would be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record if no transcript was available.

The court suggested that seeking an order for the production of the hearing transcript would be the most efficient way to resolve the evidentiary dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to five questions refused by the plaintiff during an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The refused questions related to the income tax returns of the plaintiff's wife, the financial statements of a family trust, and details regarding the plaintiff's pension from a previous employer.

The court upheld all five refusals, finding the requested information either irrelevant to the pleadings or too far removed to warrant disclosure.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The plaintiff, General Motors of Canada Company, sought an injunction to restrain the defendants, including Unifor Canada and several individuals, from obstructing access to its headquarters.

The defendants had established a blockade following GM's announcement of a plant closure.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctive relief in labour disputes, finding that while GM established a prima facie case of nuisance, it failed to demonstrate irreparable harm not compensable by damages.

The court also considered the balance of convenience, acknowledging the significant impact of GM's decisions on autoworkers' livelihoods.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the injunction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate his disability upon returning to work in 2015.

The Tribunal repeatedly directed the applicant to provide specific details regarding the 2015 allegations and to refrain from filing voluminous documentation or re-litigating a previously withdrawn 2013 application.

The applicant consistently failed to comply with these directions, instead submitting vague allegations and irrelevant documents.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's repeated refusal to follow directions prevented a fair and expeditious hearing, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, disability, and sex against his former supervisor.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the application contained no Code-related allegations against the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay and abuse of process, arguing the applicant was attempting to re-litigate a 2013 application that he had previously withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2012 allegations were untimely and an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding the timely allegation that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability upon his return to work in 2015.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and supervisor.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the high threshold for economic duress and dismissed the application against the corporate respondent as an abuse of process.

The application against the personal respondent was allowed to proceed to a summary hearing, as the release did not explicitly cover individuals.

The applicant, who retired early due to a workplace injury, alleged that General Motors discriminated against him on the basis of disability by deducting his WSIB loss of earnings benefits from his early retirement pension benefits.

The applicant argued this was discriminatory because other early retirees who worked post-retirement were permitted to keep significant earned income without deduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the appropriate comparator group was other early retirees who do not work post-retirement.

Since both groups received the same bridging income amount, there was no adverse treatment and therefore no discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled for two days, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Notice of Hearing had been sent to the applicant's provided address and was not returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination brought several requests for interim orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to have his doctor testify by telephone, finding it appropriate for medical professionals.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's broad requests for his employment file and grievance records for lacking specificity.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent employer to obtain and disclose the applicant's Sun Life benefits file, as the discontinuance of benefits was central to the discrimination claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming he was denied a full pension due to a work-related injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the facts giving rise to his claim more than a year before filing the application.

As a lack of knowledge of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent employer determined it had no suitable work available for him following a work-related injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB decisions constituted a 'proceeding', they did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The WSIB process focused on co-operation rather than accommodation to the point of undue hardship, and the applicant had no financial stake in its outcome.

The request to dismiss under section 45.1 was denied, and the matter was deferred to mediation.

The appellants, unionized masonry contractors, appealed an order staying their action against the respondents and denying injunctive relief.

The appellants sought to challenge the legality of a Memorandum of Agreement and collective agreements that prohibited independent contractor arrangements with individual bricklayers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and that the appellants had avenues within the labour relations regime to challenge the agreements.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal or a stay of a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The dispute arose from an employment contract containing a sole employer clause and a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved exclusively in Mexico.

The court found that although Ontario technically had jurisdiction, the employment contract’s choice of forum clause and the existence of ongoing proceedings before Mexican labour authorities justified declining to exercise that jurisdiction.

Applying the principles governing enforcement of forum selection clauses, the court held the plaintiff failed to demonstrate strong cause to depart from the agreed forum.

The Ontario action was stayed pending the outcome of the Mexican proceedings.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming his contract was not renewed because of an issue involving his brother in the workplace.

The applicant argued his brother stood in a parent-child relationship to him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the respondents had no knowledge of a parent-child type relationship between the siblings, and sibling status alone is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of two related union grievance proceedings.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance processes.