Julian Roy

The Catholic entities appealed an order allowing residential school survivors to archive their Independent Assessment Process (IAP) documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation without the consent of alleged perpetrators.

Canada cross-appealed, arguing the IAP documents were government records subject to federal archiving and privacy legislation and could not be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that only claimants have the right to decide whether to archive their documents.

The Court further held that the IAP documents are not government records because they are not under government control, and upheld the supervising judge's order to destroy the documents after a 15-year retention period to protect the claimants' privacy and confidentiality.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for certiorari to quash a summary conviction trial judge's order requiring them to attend part of their trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the certiorari judge and reiterating that criminal trials should not be interrupted by interlocutory appeals or certiorari applications absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested to reactivate their human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a coroner's inquest.

The coroner's inquest concluded and the jury rendered its verdict and recommendations.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory ruling made by a coroner at the outset of an inquest into a police shooting.

The ruling limited the scope of cross-examination of two police officers regarding their consultations with counsel prior to making their notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the basis of prematurity, holding that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings, particularly coroner's inquests, absent exceptional circumstances that would result in a fundamental failing of justice.

The applicants, a group of firefighters, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60.

They argued that the respondents failed to accommodate them by not developing an individual testing regime to assess their cardiac risk, relying on an exception discussed in previous jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to develop a testing regime upon a general request, and the applicants had not presented evidence of an exceptionally low cardiac risk to trigger an individual exception.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission sought directions regarding Canada's obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to provide documents archived at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and documents relating to the TRC's legacy mandate.

Canada moved to strike the TRC's request, arguing the TRC lacked capacity and standing, and moved to strike several affidavits.

The court held that the TRC had capacity to bring the proceedings and declined to strike most of the affidavits.

On the substantive issues, the court ruled that Canada's obligation to provide relevant documents extends to those archived at LAC, but that the TRC's legacy mandate does not include evaluating Canada's policy responses, meaning Canada need not produce documents relating to those responses.

The applicant, a student support worker and legal guardian of a troubled student at the same school, alleged that the school board discriminated against him on the basis of family status when it terminated his contract.

The school board maintained that the applicant was terminated because he inappropriately used his paid work hours to advocate for his ward, creating a conflict of interest and disrupting staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no clear link between the applicant's family status and his termination, as the dismissal resulted from his inability to separate his role as an employee from his role as a parent during school hours.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found they had discriminated against an employee on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, and sex.

The Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The adjudicator erred by refusing to accommodate a key witness for the employer, drawing an adverse inference from that witness's absence, and making findings of discrimination regarding a microwave policy and dress code that were unsupported by factual findings or logical legal reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant and a co-accused were jointly tried for first-degree murder.

The co-accused advanced a cut-throat defence and adduced highly prejudicial bad character evidence against the appellant, including statements that the appellant had killed before.

The appellant was convicted and the co-accused was acquitted.

On appeal, the appellant argued the bad character evidence was inadmissible and the jury instructions regarding its use were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was admissible but found the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate positive and negative instructions on how the jury could use it.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso, concluding that the evidence of the appellant's participation in the murder was so overwhelming that a properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted him.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, sought by the United States for the attempted murder of a police officer in 1969, applied for a review of a detention order pending his extradition hearing.

He had previously jumped bail twice in the US and lived in Canada under an assumed name for 30 years.

The applicant proposed a revised release plan including electronic monitoring and supervision by his mother-in-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no error in principle in the application judge's conclusion that the applicant remained a significant flight risk and that electronic monitoring would not ensure his attendance in court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a procedural endorsement consolidating three appeals involving the respondents Hamilton, Mason, and Spencer.

On consent, the court granted leave to intervene to several organizations, including the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Native Women's Association of Canada, and Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.

The endorsement also established the timetable for perfecting the appeals, filing factums, and the allocation of time for oral arguments.

At the opening of an application for judicial review regarding a coroner's inquest, the applicants brought a motion to remove the law firm representing the respondent Coroner.

The firm had previously done corporate legal work for a corporation that had standing at the inquest.

Although there was no actual conflict of interest, the Divisional Court granted the motion and removed the firm based on the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and avoid any appearance of impropriety.