Lesley Campbell

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO interim decision that disqualified his counsel, a former Associate Chair of the HRTO.

The HRTO adjudicator had raised concerns about conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias because the applicant's file was opened during the counsel's tenure as Associate Chair, and the counsel had been involved in the adjudicator's hiring process.

The Divisional Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the interim decision unreasonable.

The court held that the adjudicator improperly conflated conflict of interest with bias, and that the appropriate remedy for a bias concern was for the adjudicator to recuse herself, not to deprive the applicant of his counsel of choice.

The moving party tribunal brought a motion to strike an application for judicial review of an interim decision that removed the responding party's counsel due to an alleged appearance of a conflict of interest.

The tribunal argued the judicial review was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as there was a reasonable argument that exceptional circumstances existed to justify reviewing the interim decision.

A school board principal accessed and photographed private communications stored on a cloud-based personal log that was open on a board-owned laptop.

The teachers' union grieved the resulting written reprimands, alleging a breach of privacy rights.

A labour arbitrator dismissed the grievance applying the arbitral balancing-of-interests framework without conducting a s. 8 Charter analysis.

The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Charter applies to Ontario public school boards under the first branch of the Eldridge framework, as public education is an inherently governmental function.

The majority held the arbitrator fatally erred by failing to apply the s. 8 framework, and quashed the award.

The concurring minority would have applied a reasonableness standard and found the arbitrator's reliance on the contents of the log to assess the biographical core was unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant union sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed grievances regarding the discharge of employees who could not complete a new job rotation due to disabilities.

The application was brought more than eight months after the award, well beyond the 30-day time limit in section 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court denied the extension of time under section 5(2), holding that the court retains discretion to consider the length of and explanation for the delay, and found the applicant's delay was lengthy and unexplained, and the grounds for relief were weak.

This appeal concerned whether public school teachers are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the search is performed in the workplace by their employers.

The case involved a school principal reading and taking screenshots of a private, password-protected log maintained by two teachers on their personal Google account, accessed via a workplace laptop, which was then used by the school board for disciplinary action.

The Court of Appeal found that the labour relations arbitrator and the Divisional Court erred in their interpretation and application of section 8, concluding that the teachers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their log, which was violated by the principal's actions.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit in an oppression application.

The court struck paragraphs containing legal argument and conclusions, finding them inappropriate for an affidavit.

However, the court deferred the decision on paragraphs challenged for relevance and character impugnment to the judge hearing the main application, emphasizing that relevance is best assessed in the full context of the application.