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.

The applicant, a police constable, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, as well as reprisal, against his employer, his union (the Association), and a third-party ability management service.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the Association had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the Association failed to assist the applicant in the accommodation process, organized a mediation meeting without his consent, and supported the use of the third-party service.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the denial of access to the central sick leave bank and the development of a new sick leave policy to proceed against the Association.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on citizenship, colour, and race.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent, which provides airport ground handling and cargo services, is a federally regulated enterprise and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the services provided are an integral part of a federally-regulated undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to delays and an impending workplace closure.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The allegation of discrimination based on 'record of offences' was struck on consent.

During a hearing for an occupational health and safety reprisal application, the applicant's counsel sought to cross-examine an employer witness on the identity of a confidential source who had informed the employer of the applicant's driver's licence suspension.

The employer objected on the grounds of relevance and privilege.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the identity of the source was not relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant was disciplined as a reprisal for advancing health and safety concerns.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of part of a business occurred when Ontario Hydro sold the Glen Cross Conference and Training Centre to Goldman Hotels Inc. The purchaser argued that it merely bought idle assets and started a new business.

The Board found that there was substantial continuity of enterprise, evidenced by a two-year leaseback to Ontario Hydro and continued room bookings from former clients.

The Board also found substantial continuity in the bargaining unit work performed by the front-line staff.

The Board concluded that a sale of part of a business occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act and declared that the collective agreement applied to the purchaser's operation.

During a hearing for a related employer and sale of business application, the applicant union sought to adduce evidence from a witness regarding an alleged scheme by the responding parties' principals to avoid the union's bargaining rights.

The responding parties objected, arguing that the union had failed to put this allegation to their key witness during his earlier cross-examination, in violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the union's failure to give the witness an opportunity to respond to the serious allegation of a scheme caused considerable prejudice.

Given the late stage of the proceedings and the lack of explanation for the delay, the Board barred the union from calling or relying on evidence relating to the witness's involvement in the alleged scheme.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties failed to comply with a settlement agreement.

The responding parties did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding parties breached the settlement by failing to pay the outstanding balance of $89,000.

The Board ordered the responding parties to pay the outstanding amount plus a 10 percent penalty, totaling $97,900, as stipulated in the settlement agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the City of North York retaliated against it following a successful arbitration award that reinstated an employee discharged for drug offences.

The City initiated a process to contract out garbage collection, froze hiring and purchasing, removed a union representative from a health and safety committee, and the Mayor made numerous public statements attacking the union and threatening privatization.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the City's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to intimidate employees from exercising their right to file grievances.

The Board ordered the City to cease the contracting out process, lift the hiring freeze, reinstate the committee member, and post notices of the violations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred from The Westbury Hotel to Ronnie Gee's Sports Palace, and that the successor employer was bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent acknowledged the sale but requested to be relieved of the collective agreement obligations, arguing it was inapplicable to its sports bar operation.

The respondent also argued the bargaining unit only covered full-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement, finding no statutory basis to relieve it of the obligations.

The Board also clarified that the collective agreement explicitly covered both full-time and part-time employees.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

The employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was unreliable because an employee had threatened another employee with job loss and higher initiation fees if he did not join the union.

The Board found that the employee who made the statements was not acting as a collector or agent for the union, but was merely a rank-and-file employee trying to influence a friend.

As peer pressure does not invalidate membership evidence, the Board found the evidence reliable and granted the certificate.

The union subsequently withdrew its unfair labour practice complaint.