G. James Fyshe

The applicant, an Aboriginal Catholic, alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of religion and disability.

She claimed she was unfairly criticized and terminated because of her religion, and that the employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs following a medical leave.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions were motivated by the applicant's religion or disability.

The evidence showed the applicant was terminated due to perceived misconduct and interpersonal issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to add a newly created corporation, New Bata, as a respondent to her human rights application under the common employer doctrine, following the insolvency of her former employer, Old Bata (now Athletes World Limited).

The Tribunal found that New Bata was a successor employer, not a common employer, and since the Human Rights Code lacks successor employer provisions, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to add New Bata.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the personal respondent, Sonja Bata, finding that she was protected by a Release and Indemnity the applicant had signed as part of a settlement with Athletes World Limited.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Following a corporate restructuring and CCAA proceedings involving the respondent employer, the applicant sought to add a newly created corporation as a party respondent and requested extensive production of documents relating to the restructuring.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the new corporation and the personal respondent to disclose specific documents and information relevant to the restructuring and their relationships, and set a schedule for further evidence and submissions on the preliminary issues.

The applicants, municipal employees who held public office, were dismissed for cause and brought applications for judicial review claiming a denial of natural justice.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Dunsmuir, the applicants commenced a wrongful dismissal action and sought to consolidate or stay the judicial review applications.

The respondent municipality moved to quash the applications.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the applicants' employment was governed by contract law and did not fall within the narrow public law exceptions recognized in Dunsmuir.

The court deferred the costs of the applications until the wrongful dismissal action was resolved on the merits.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: one temporarily staying the action pending the resolution of related tax proceedings, and another striking claims of conspiracy and misfeasance in public office with leave to amend.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decisions and no conflicting decisions warranting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following an unsuccessful application for judicial review regarding mill closures, the applicants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest nature of the litigation.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondents, fixing the Ministry's costs at $22,368.68 and reducing Domtar's claimed costs to $12,000 to account for duplication of work among the respondents.

The union appealed from a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine an employee's entitlement to long-term disability benefits as against an insurer.

The collective agreement required the employer only to maintain the group insurance policy in force and pay premiums, obligations the employer had admittedly fulfilled, and the policy was not incorporated into the collective agreement.

Applying correctness review and the essential character analysis under labour arbitration jurisprudence, the court held the dispute was between the employee and the insurer under the insurance policy, not a dispute arising from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator therefore lacked jurisdiction, and also lacked authority to add the insurer to the arbitration.

The appellant company closed its plant and terminated group insurance benefits for retired workers following the expiration of the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination of benefits.

The company objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on the basis that the collective agreement had expired.

The arbitrator found the matter arbitrable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction must be correct, applying a pragmatic and functional approach.

The Court further held that retirement benefits can vest and survive the expiration of a collective agreement, allowing the grievance to proceed.

The Appellant, an injured worker entitled to workers' compensation benefits, appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying him no-fault benefits under section 21 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The Appellant argued that the plain wording of section 21 entitled him to benefits either because he commenced a tort action or because he was not receiving workers' compensation payments.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's interpretation that section 21 requires a bona fide action for threshold-type injuries, and found the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the action was not bona fide as it was commenced solely to qualify for no-fault benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, but the Appellant was awarded expenses due to the novelty and importance of the legal issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a bus in the course of his employment.

He elected to sue the at-fault third party rather than claim workers' compensation benefits, and subsequently applied for interim no-fault benefits under Section 21 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim under Section 20, arguing that the applicant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

The arbitrator held that Section 21 only applies to bona fide threshold claims where damages are recoverable, not to cases where a lawsuit is initiated solely to qualify for no-fault benefits.

The application for no-fault benefits was dismissed.