Leanne Nicole Fisher

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Lalonde, brought a motion to strike portions of the defendant Canadian Blood Services' statement of defence, specifically references to the 'plaintiff’s husband’s law firm,' arguing they were irrelevant, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The defendant argued these facts were material to the issue of repudiation of the employment contract.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the references immaterial to the claim or defence and serving no legitimate purpose other than to diminish the plaintiff's claim and cast her and her counsel in a negative light.

The court also ordered the removal of gratuitous underlining from the statement of defence by consent.

The appellant law firm appealed directions issued by an Administrative Judge regarding the review of legal fees under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The Administrative Judge had ruled that decisions of the Chief Adjudicator in the fee review process are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, holding that a Chief Adjudicator's decision is only reviewable by an Administrative Judge in very limited circumstances where it fails to enforce the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, which the appellant failed to establish.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the dismissal of a bus driver who was involved in a fatal rear-end collision.

The driver had been acquitted of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges.

The union argued that under the doctrine of abuse of process, the arbitration board erred by allowing the employer to relitigate facts decided in the criminal trial and by finding the driver grossly negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the abuse of process doctrine did not apply because the employer was not a party to the criminal proceedings.

The court further found that the arbitration board's conclusions regarding gross negligence, its decision to take a view of the accident scene, and its interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.