James Cameron

The applicant, a medical resident diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision dismissing him from a pediatric neurology program for professionalism breaches.

He argued the committee failed to properly consider the duty to accommodate his disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee reasonably concluded that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, as it would require constant one-on-one supervision to mitigate the risk to vulnerable patients.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions where the defendants successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim and granted the defendants' motion to strike numerous paragraphs from the statement of claim and reply.

The defendants sought $16,641.06 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was unreasonable and disproportionate, proposing $5,000.00.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher, found the defendants' claimed time excessive due to inferred overlap between counsel.

The court fixed costs at $12,000.00, inclusive of tax and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim following a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that largely barred their claims against the defendants under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike out paragraphs of the original statement of claim and reply that were inconsistent with the WSIAT decision, as well as allegations related to surveillance and Human Rights Code breaches.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments were statute-barred or otherwise untenable.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike, ruling that the WSIAT decision was final and binding, that the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim related to surveillance was inadequately pleaded, and that the Human Rights Code claims were either barred by WSIAT or could not stand alone.

This appeal considered whether actuarial surpluses recorded in federal public-sector superannuation accounts were assets in which plan members held legal or equitable interests.

The Court held the accounts were statutory accounting records tracking Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions, not segregated asset pools.

It rejected claims based on proprietary entitlement, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and alleged expropriation.

The Court further held the statutory amendments authorized debiting surplus amounts and did not require compensation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals regarding a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finding of pay inequity between a largely female group of employees and a largely male comparator group.

The Federal Court of Appeal had previously overturned the Tribunal's finding.

In an oral judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals on the merits, finding no reviewable error by the Tribunal, and dismissed the appeal regarding the reduction of damages, adopting the dissenting reasons of Evans J.A. from the court below.

The parties consented to an order fixing the costs of the appeal at $100,000, all inclusive, payable to the respondent Crown.

The appellants, representing federal public servants, RCMP, and Canadian Forces personnel, appealed the dismissal of their actions seeking the return of over $28 billion to their pension plans.

The Government had amortized and later withdrawn actuarial surpluses from the Superannuation Accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superannuation Accounts were merely legislated ledgers containing no actual assets, as employee contributions were deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Court held that the Government did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plan members regarding the surplus, nor was it unjustly enriched.

Furthermore, the 2000 amendments to the governing statutes clearly authorized the Government to withdraw the actuarial surplus.