Rika Sawatsky

The plaintiffs initiated a class action against numerous governmental and international entities, including Pope Francis and Queen Elizabeth II, alleging harms from COVID-19 protocols and constitutional infringements.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its rambling nature, irrelevant historical allegations, and lack of specific legal basis for claims.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants, with no costs awarded.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a preliminary motion for an order permitting the anonymization of affidavits to be sworn by strippers in support of an application for judicial review challenging COVID-19 regulations.

The applicant argued that publicly identifying the affiants would put their economic and family safety at risk due to the stigma associated with their occupation.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that the applicant established a serious risk to the administration of justice and that there was no reasonable alternative to the order.

The court granted the motion, allowing the use of non-identifying initials in publicly available documents, provided that the respondent and the court have access to the affiants' full names in a sealed record.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The Attorney General brought a motion to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a scheduled constitutional challenge hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would unnecessarily disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in court, and stated that issues of reliability and weight could be addressed during the hearing.

The Attorney General moved to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a constitutional challenge hearing before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court of law, leaving issues of reliability and weight for later determination.

The applicant brought a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The motion judge had dismissed the applicant's request to file four affidavits in support of its application for judicial review of a labour arbitration decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law.

The court agreed that the proposed affidavits, which detailed oral submissions made before the arbitrator, were an impermissible attempt to supplement the record and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for admitting affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.