Donald B. Jarvis

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed one of her two allegations of breach of a settlement agreement for being untimely.

The HRTO found that the two alleged breaches did not constitute a 'series of contraventions' under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, meaning the first breach was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with its established jurisprudence.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias, finding no evidentiary basis for them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but stayed the motion judge's order pending the outcome of proceedings under the collective agreement and before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Given the mixed success on the appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement ordering that no costs be awarded.

The appellant, a former police officer, sued the police board and chief of police for breach of a resignation agreement and misfeasance in public office after the chief swore an affidavit in a separate class action that allegedly identified her.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the essential character of the dispute arose from her employment and was subject to the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the dispute's essential character fell within the collective agreement and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, but varied the order to stay the action rather than dismiss it, pending the exhaustion of the appellant's arbitral and statutory remedies.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, sued for breach of a resignation agreement negotiated between herself, the police board, and the police association.

The court first determined that the jurisdictional issue was not res judicata, as a previous motion judge had struck the claim on other grounds without deciding the jurisdictional question.

Applying the Weber exclusive jurisdiction model, the court found that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement.

Therefore, exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute lay with a labour arbitrator, not the Superior Court.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement awarding costs to the appellant in connection with both the appeal and the motion before the motion judge.

The appellant, acting in person, was awarded all-inclusive costs of $4,000 for the appeal and $3,500 for the motion.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure without leave to amend.

The appellant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by: (1) appealing her WSIB benefits claim in violation of a release clause, and (2) breaching confidentiality provisions by disclosing settlement agreement information in an affidavit filed in a class proceeding.

The motion judge struck both claims and dismissed the action against the individual respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed, and granted leave to amend the claim against the individual respondent.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, sued for breach of a Resignation Agreement, alleging the defendants appealed her workers' compensation claim and disclosed her identity in an affidavit, contrary to confidentiality terms.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court found that parties cannot contract out of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and that the affidavit, prepared for a court proceeding, was protected by absolute privilege.

Consequently, both grounds for the breach of contract claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and the claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant, a former police officer, brought an application under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an application brought by the respondent Police Services Board before the Human Rights Tribunal for Ontario.

The respondent's tribunal application sought to enforce a confidentiality provision in a resignation agreement.

The Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the tribunal proceeding, as the term 'proceeding' in section 137.1(3) is limited to civil proceedings before a court and does not extend to proceedings before administrative tribunals.

The application was dismissed.