Lily I. Harmer

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the university regarding a plagiarism charge.

The application was filed more than two months after the one-year statutory deadline.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

Finding that the applicant lacked due diligence and his explanation lacked credibility, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The appellants, holders of Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) notes, appealed a decision sanctioning a restructuring plan under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The plan included comprehensive releases of third-party financial institutions from liability, including certain claims relating to fraud.

The appellants argued the CCAA does not permit third-party releases and that the releases were unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA permits third-party releases that are reasonably connected to the proposed restructuring.

The Court found the application judge did not err in concluding the plan was fair and reasonable, as the releases were necessary for the restructuring to succeed and benefited the creditors as a whole.

The appellants failed to appear for the hearing of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded the respondent $1,000 for disbursements.

The applicant physician sought judicial review to prohibit the respondent tribunal from proceeding with a patient's claim of sexual assault filed 10 years prior.

The applicant had been exonerated by both the police and his professional college shortly after the allegations were made.

The tribunal had closed its file for over four years before reopening it, and the applicant presented evidence that key witnesses' memories had faded.

The Divisional Court granted the application and stayed the proceedings, finding that the extraordinary delay compromised the fairness of the hearing and amounted to a gross abuse of process.

The applicant County sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that private-home day care providers were employees of the County for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had applied the common law 'total relationship' and 'organization/integration' tests to conclude the providers were employees.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable.

The majority held that the Tribunal ignored or irrationally discounted evidence demonstrating that the providers were independent contractors, such as their contracts, tax filings, and level of independence.

Ardagh PLC, an unsuccessful bidder in a court-approved sale process under the CCAA, sought leave to appeal the order approving the sale of Consumers Packaging Inc.'s assets to Owens-Illinois, Inc. The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings should be granted sparingly and not where it would prejudice the restructuring.

The court also noted that an unsuccessful bidder generally lacks standing to challenge a sale approval order.

On an appeal from the Divisional Court in an employment standards matter, the court held that the applicable standard of review of the adjudicator's decision was reasonableness.

Adopting the dissenting view in the Divisional Court, the court concluded that the adjudicator's interpretation of the relevant provision of the Employment Standards Act was reasonable.

The appeal was therefore allowed, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the employer in favour of the employee, with no costs for or against the adjudicator.

The applicant union and responding Crown sought a determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding which services involving court administration and Y2K preparation were 'essential services' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held that the administration of the courts must continue without disruption during a strike or lock-out, and identified specific court personnel whose roles constitute essential services.

Regarding Y2K preparation, the Board ruled that essentiality requires a project-by-project assessment, directing the parties to negotiate specific projects and allowing the Crown to reapply before a strike or lock-out if necessary.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined several unresolved issues between the union and the employer regarding an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board ruled that the employer may require overtime for essential services, subject to union challenge for abuse.

The Board also held that the parties must negotiate essential work functions, not merely designated positions.

Furthermore, if an employee exercises a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to inadequate staffing levels, the employer may unilaterally increase the number of essential workers to eliminate the unsafe condition, subject to Board review.

The Board also granted union representatives access to all worksites during a strike.

The applicant union applied for direction of settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Subsequently, the union applied under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), asserting the respondent employer is a hospital.

The employer argued the Board should dismiss or defer the first contract application.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for abuse of process but adjourned the hearing pending the Minister's decision on the respondent's status under the HLDAA, noting the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially null proceeding.

The applicants filed objections to a review officer's order regarding the employer's pay equity plan, alleging undervaluation of their work and flawed comparison systems.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants had established a prima facie case in their pleadings.

The majority held that the pleadings, though sparse, went beyond bald allegations and established a prima facie case, noting that non-union applicants have limited access to information about their employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted leave to provide further particulars and directed a second pre-hearing conference.

The Alternate Chair dissented, finding that the applications failed to plead material facts demonstrating how the evaluations were inappropriate.