Paul Brooks

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a status conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a seven-day video hearing to commence on May 19, 2026, and setting out the procedural steps and deadlines leading up to the hearing.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) that required the defendants to sever and reconvey a 7-acre parcel of a 56-acre property back to the plaintiff for nominal consideration.

The defendants argued that the terms were ambiguous and subject to ongoing negotiations.

The court found the APS terms clear and unambiguous, applied the parol evidence rule to exclude the defendants' evidence of subjective intentions, and granted summary judgment for specific performance, noting the unique nature of the property.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and breached the Human Rights Code.

The employee was terminated after a 28-month disability leave, despite providing a return-to-work plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the employment contract was not frustrated, the employer failed to accommodate the employee, and disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer were not deductible from the wrongful dismissal damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant was predominantly successful in overturning a wrongful dismissal finding but unsuccessful on other grounds.

The court assessed the appellant's claim for substantial indemnity costs, which was significantly higher than the damages awarded and the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court found that Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to appeals, nor does Rule 14.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules provide for enhanced costs on appeal.

Considering factors under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01(1) of the Rules, including the proportionality of costs to the amount at stake and the level of success, the court awarded the appellant $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, significantly less than the $56,320.96 claimed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance based on the same facts was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board ordered that the application be adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, which the insurer terminated after three years.

She applied for arbitration seeking reinstatement of weekly benefits and homemaker services.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from a significant mobility impairment and chronic pain that justified the reinstatement of 12 hours per week of homemaker services, her disability was not so pervasive as to continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her usual activities.

Therefore, the claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was awarded her expenses for the arbitration.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that Canada Stampings & Dies Ltd. and Stamptech Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the two businesses were related or associated, as they served the same general market, employed the same mode of production, and were under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declaration, finding that the establishment of the new operation had an adverse effect on the union's existing bargaining rights by transferring work and potential growth away from the original bargaining unit.

The declaration was made retrospective to the date the union filed its grievance.

The applicant's spouse died in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer paid the applicant a $50,000 spousal death benefit under section 11(2)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but denied his claim for an additional $20,000 dependant death benefit under section 11(2)(c).

The arbitrator held that the spousal and dependant death benefits are not mutually exclusive, and a spouse may claim both if they meet the criteria for financial dependency.

However, after analyzing the family's income and expenses, the arbitrator found that the applicant was not principally dependent for financial support on his deceased spouse at the time of the accident.

The claim for the dependant death benefit was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.

The applicants applied for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement had been concluded, an issue that was the subject of a separate, ongoing unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants and the intervener employer requested that the Board direct a representation vote and seal the ballot box pending the resolution of the timeliness issue.

The Board declined to order a vote, citing concerns about jurisdiction, employee expectations, and the potential labour relations impact of holding and later nullifying a vote.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination of the related complaint.