Erin Wallace

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on sex and sexual orientation following his termination.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed a grievance on his behalf regarding the termination.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, finding it had an interest in the proceeding.

Noting the concurrent grievance arbitration, the Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application should be deferred or dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The respondent Moose Cree First Nation brought a motion to strike portions of a judicial review application and supporting affidavit filed by the MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation regarding a hydroelectric project.

The parties resolved several issues, including the removal of Charter and Aboriginal rights claims.

The court deferred a decision on striking hearsay evidence in the affidavit pending further information.

Given the complexity and public policy implications, the court referred the remaining issue of the applicant's capacity to bring the application to a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, with the last incident occurring over three years prior.

The respondents requested dismissal due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's ignorance of the law, pursuit of other proceedings, and medical condition did not adequately explain the delay.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer and two unions (SEIU and UFCW) based on race, ancestry, place of origin, disability, and sex.

The employer settled.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the unions should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against SEIU because it was filed more than four months past the one-year statutory deadline and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against UFCW because there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the union's alleged failure to represent her properly and any prohibited Code grounds.

The respondents requested an adjournment on the first day of the hearing, claiming their representative never received the Confirmation of Hearing Notice due to a change in mailing address.

Although the representative showed a lack of due diligence, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to avoid prejudice to the respondents, noting the other parties consented.

The Tribunal also issued case assessment directions, varying the Rules to allow the unrepresented applicant to submit a witness list and suggesting she consider calling her family physician.