Marcia Lynn Barry

Robert Cada, an Indigenous person, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an 8-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for 4 years based on the parity principle with a non-Indigenous co-accused and factors related to Mr. Cada's Indigenous heritage.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and Mr. Cada's significant criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea and the impact of intergenerational trauma as outlined in his Gladue Report.

The court sentenced Mr. Cada to 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The applicant, a nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

After the arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no discrimination, the applicant sought to proceed with the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration was another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her union for failing to file a grievance regarding her termination and failing to advance her WSIB claim in a timely manner.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to allege or provide any basis to suggest that her disability was a factor in the union's behaviour.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer and two unions (SEIU and UFCW) based on race, ancestry, place of origin, disability, and sex.

The employer settled.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the unions should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against SEIU because it was filed more than four months past the one-year statutory deadline and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against UFCW because there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the union's alleged failure to represent her properly and any prohibited Code grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury and discriminatorily terminated his employment.

These same issues had previously been the subject of a grievance and a six-day labour arbitration, which dismissed the grievance and found no violation of the Code.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola, holding that s. 45.1 of the Code requires the dismissal of an application where the same issues were decided in a different proceeding, without reviewing the procedural or substantive correctness of that prior proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because of ongoing union grievances regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal found that the grievances had not been referred to arbitration despite the passage of time and had been held in abeyance.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that proceeding with the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

The respondents requested an adjournment on the first day of the hearing, claiming their representative never received the Confirmation of Hearing Notice due to a change in mailing address.

Although the representative showed a lack of due diligence, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to avoid prejudice to the respondents, noting the other parties consented.

The Tribunal also issued case assessment directions, varying the Rules to allow the unrepresented applicant to submit a witness list and suggesting she consider calling her family physician.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and race regarding the claimant's employment and termination.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on June 4, 2008, when the employer made a settlement offer, and that subsequent steps in the grievance procedure did not constitute new incidents.

As the application was filed on June 30, 2009, it was out of time.

The Tribunal also found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process or being out of the country were not reasonable explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the termination of his employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the reasons for the applicant's absence and conducted the type of analysis contemplated by the Code.

The application was dismissed as an attempt to re-litigate a case already determined.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in his employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed his supervisor made derogatory comments about his English proficiency and that he was unfairly demoted during a bumping process.

He also alleged a co-worker made a racially offensive comment.

At the close of the applicant's case, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested an expedited proceeding based on an agreement to return her to work in a new department.

The corporate respondent and the applicant's union opposed the request.

The Tribunal found no basis to conclude the circumstances were urgent compared to the regular process and denied the request to expedite.