Marshall Jeske

The moving parties, Canada School of Public Service and Pierre Leduc, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hackland J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) brought a motion to seal a portion of its record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of IPC decisions regarding redacted police records.

The IPC sought to file an unredacted 'private' record under seal to prevent the premature disclosure of the very information at issue in the judicial review.

The court granted the sealing order, finding it necessary to prevent a serious risk to the integrity of the judicial review process and noting that disclosure would render the application moot.

The applicant, an inmate, sought judicial review of a grievance response regarding the opening of correspondence from the College of Nurses of Ontario by prison staff.

The Special Advisor had found that the College was not a privileged correspondent and thus opening the mail to inspect its contents was permitted, though reading it for medical scheduling was improper.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable, noting the applicant's argument that the College should be considered a 'provincial ombudsperson' was not raised in the grievance process and therefore could not be raised on judicial review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants, the Canada School of Public Service and five employees, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

The plaintiff, a former federal public servant whose security clearance was revoked, sued for breach of privacy, negligence, and defamation after her employer reported a suspicious fax to the police.

The court held that the privacy claims relating to the employer's involvement of the police fell outside the collective agreement and could proceed.

However, the negligence and defamation claims regarding workplace discipline and suspensions were in their essential character workplace disputes and were stayed.

The applicant, a divorced Midgan woman from Djibouti, sought judicial review of a decision rejecting her pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

The Federal Court found no procedural unfairness in the officer's decision not to hold an oral hearing, as the officer based the findings on insufficient evidence rather than credibility.

However, the Court held that the officer's assessment of state protection in Djibouti was unreasonable because it focused on alternate institutions (family/clan) rather than actual operational adequacy of the state.

The application was granted and remitted for reconsideration.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a proposed class action and constitutional challenge as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action asserted a global conspiracy related to COVID-19, seeking billions in damages from various domestic and foreign entities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, legal analysis, or factual findings, and affirmed that the case was a clear instance for applying Rule 2.1.01.

The appellant, Cary Beazley, appealed the dismissal of his 2018 action against Canada and Ontario.

This 2018 action raised substantially the same issues and pleadings as a previous 2017 action, which had been dismissed for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and whose dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the 2018 action on the grounds of *res judicata* and abuse of process, finding the pleadings substantially identical and that the claim could not possibly succeed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, agreeing that the claim was abusive and that the motion judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the claim without requesting submissions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought to set aside the decision of a single judge of the Court of Appeal who dismissed his motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal.

The underlying action against the provincial and federal Crowns had been struck without leave to amend.

The panel accepted the moving party's explanation for delay but found no basis to interfere with the single judge's conclusion that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) which refused an application to hire four full-time foreign food counter attendants.

The LMIA officer determined the applicant failed to make reasonable efforts to hire Canadians because the entry-level wage advertised was below the median wage and they failed to use the JobMatch program.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable as the officer failed to consider the applicant's evidence regarding the actual prevailing wage for entry-level positions and ignored explanations regarding the JobMatch service, thereby fettering their discretion.

The application for judicial review was granted.