M. Bader

The plaintiffs, aboriginal persons removed from their homes by Ontario child welfare authorities and placed with non-aboriginal families, brought a proposed class action against Canada for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Canada appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the statement of claim and the certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given Canada's unique relationship with aboriginal peoples and its delegation of child welfare responsibilities to Ontario.

The respondent union brought a motion requesting further particulars of the human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already made ample disclosure, but ordered the Commission to allow the union to re-examine its file.

The Commission also brought a motion seeking guidance on the presentation of evidence regarding reasonable accommodation.

The Board ruled that the Commission should elicit evidence on reasonable accommodation during its case-in-chief, even though the burden of proving accommodation short of undue hardship rests on the respondents.

The complainant, a black man from Jamaica, alleged that his employment was terminated during his probationary period due to racial discrimination.

The respondents maintained that the dismissal was based exclusively on unsatisfactory work performance.

The Board of Inquiry weighed the credibility of the witnesses and accepted the respondents' evidence that there were problems with the complainant's work and attitude.

The Board found no evidence of discriminatory patterns or racial bias motivating the dismissal, concluding that the termination was due to unsatisfactory work performance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He had failed to promptly respond to a dispatch regarding speeding trucks, instead attempting to reassign the duty to another officer in an unauthorized manner.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the purported transfer of duties did not constitute a lawful excuse and that the appellant failed to promptly and diligently perform his assigned duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of the loss of three rest days was upheld.