Waleed Malik

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

The plaintiff brought a certified class proceeding against the Province of Ontario regarding the Centre of Forensic Sciences' (CFS) retention of DNA profiles obtained from voluntarily provided reference samples.

The class members had signed consent forms stating that electronic data related to their samples would be permanently removed if they were excluded as a match to a crime scene.

The court found that the CFS's practice of merely anonymizing, rather than permanently removing, the DNA profiles vitiated the class members' consent.

This resulted in an unreasonable search and continued seizure in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court awarded aggregate Charter damages of $1,000 per class member ($7,267,000 total) for vindication and deterrence, but dismissed the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and punitive damages, finding the CFS acted in good faith.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.