David Foster

The moving parties, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), brought a motion for an interim injunction to prohibit the responding party, the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA), from proceeding with a referendum regarding disassociation from CFS.

CFS argued the referendum violated its bylaws, which dictate a specific process and timeline for such votes.

CUSA contended the referendum was merely consultative and non-binding.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a genuine issue to be adjudicated and that proceeding with the referendum would cause irreparable harm by subverting the regular process to which all members are bound.

The court granted the mandatory order prohibiting the referendum.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was constructively dismissed when not returned to her pre-maternity leave position, but denied her request for reinstatement.

The applicant argued the finding of constructive dismissal conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate wage loss findings and failed to demonstrate that the original decision was a clear and surprising departure from settled law.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the Rideau Hill Camp Council and the United Church of Canada.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether the Church was properly named as a respondent.

The Tribunal reviewed the Camp's by-laws and found that the Church exercised a significant degree of control over the Camp, including restrictions on property transactions and financial indebtedness.

The Tribunal concluded that the Church should remain a respondent, as it could potentially be held liable for the actions of the Camp under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The organizational respondent and two individual respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found that the organizational respondent was alleged to be liable for the same conduct, no issue of vicarious liability was raised, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's medical documentation policy and her treatment during the grievance process.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which created a risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal also noted it was unclear whether the alleged mistreatment was linked to the applicant's disability.

The applicant, a person with a physical disability requiring a wheelchair, alleged that the respondent municipality discriminated against him in the provision of services by failing to clear the snow windrow left at the bottom of his driveway by municipal snowplows.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not experience discrimination, as he was unable to clear his entire private driveway due to his disability and had to hire a contractor regardless of whether the municipality cleared the windrow, meaning no additional burden was imposed.

The Tribunal further held that, even if discrimination had been established, requiring the municipality to clear windrows for all residents with disabilities would impose an undue hardship due to the significant financial cost relative to the municipality's budget.