John McLuckie

The plaintiffs, members of a local union, brought a motion to amend the style of cause in their action against their international and local unions, which were unincorporated associations.

The plaintiffs sought to exclude themselves from the defendant class, arguing that a litigant cannot be both a plaintiff and a defendant in the same action.

The court granted the motion, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended statement of claim with the proposed style of cause, which explicitly excluded the plaintiffs from the defendant class, and formally appointed the union presidents as representative defendants nunc pro tunc.

The appellant, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union (International), appealed the dismissal of a motion to strike an action brought by four rank-and-file members of the International's Toronto-based affiliate, Local 113.

The members sought a declaration that certain provisions of the International's Constitution were void for unconscionability, arguing these provisions prevented disaffiliation.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to strike but granted a temporary stay pending exhaustion of the International's constitutional amendment process.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the dismissal of the motion to strike and the temporary stay, finding the action presented arguable issues of unconscionability and that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter.

The applicant, an Advanced Care Paramedic, sought judicial review of a medical director's decision to decertify him following an investigation into a call where a patient later died.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the medical director did not follow the advisory recommendations of the Paramedic Practice Review Committee and acted as investigator, prosecutor, and decision-maker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, disclosure, opportunities to respond, and reasons, and that the process did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent Kimberly Rose requested a summary hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the issues raised by the parties could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and that summary hearings are intended for applications where allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated by two separate employers for failing to reactivate his certification.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union grieved one of the terminations, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case of discrimination linking his alleged disability to his failure to recertify.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the arbitrator's decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against both employers, and dismissed the application.

The City of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City failed to provide uninterrupted eating periods to paramedics, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The City argued that the collective agreement provided a greater benefit by paying for all eating periods and using best efforts to keep them uninterrupted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion that the collective agreement did not provide a greater benefit than the statutory right to time off was not patently unreasonable.