Nicole Simes

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his human rights complaint against his former employer, coworkers, and a workplace investigator.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the employer and certain coworkers under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil action based on the same facts.

The HRTO also dismissed the complaint against the workplace investigator, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, following Vavilov, and found that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was terminated in part due to her romantic relationship with the defendant's CEO and issues relating to her children's cell phones.

She pleaded discrimination based on marital and family status under the Human Rights Code.

The defendant moved to strike these pleadings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court declined to strike the marital status claim, finding that a serious romantic relationship might fall within the evolving definition of marital status.

However, the court struck the family status claim because the plaintiff did not plead discrimination based on a parent-child relationship.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.

The defendant employer moved to strike or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was a unionized employee subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff argued he was not part of the bargaining unit and therefore not bound by the collective agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedures.

The court held that the dispute concerned the applicability and interpretation of the collective agreement and the termination of employment, matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The court found that determining whether the plaintiff was covered by the collective agreement was itself a matter for an arbitrator.

The action was therefore stayed and costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding that the respondent was injured in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent was injured while attempting a headstand on a 'stripper pole' inside a mobile party bus.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the decision, finding it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to conclude that, given the specific nature of the vehicle, the headstand constituted an ordinary use of the vehicle and did not break the chain of causation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.