Michael Dunn

The appellant appealed convictions for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson arising from a contract killing proved in significant part through confessions obtained in a Mr. Big operation.

He argued that undercover officers improperly discouraged him from consulting his lawyer before meeting a senior undercover operative, and that this conduct amounted to an abuse of process requiring exclusion of his statements.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was entitled to find the confessions reliable and admissible under the Hart framework, and that the brief exchange about counsel did not coerce the appellant or otherwise undermine the integrity of the justice system.

The appeal was dismissed.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic's registration.

Before the hearing, the Appellants' licence and registration expired.

The Director withdrew the Notice of Proposal and brought a motion to declare the matter at an end.

The Tribunal held that the Director has the authority to withdraw a proposal, subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Finding no abuse of process and noting that the Tribunal cannot convert the hearing into one on a hypothetical future refusal of a licence, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and declared the matter at an end.

The appellants brought Charter applications during an appeal from a proposal to revoke their motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic's registration.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 of the Charter does not apply because the proceedings are regulatory, not criminal.

The Tribunal also held that Section 7 of the Charter does not apply to the corporate appellant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on whether Section 7 applies to the individual appellant's claim of unlawful detention until evidence is heard.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, alleged discrimination on the basis of citizenship because he was required to enter into a Return of Service Agreement to secure funding for his residency program, unlike Canadian medical graduates.

The applicant failed to attend the resumption of his hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to establish that the distinction based on the location of medical education was a proxy for citizenship, place of origin, or ethnic origin, and alternatively, that the application was abandoned.

The complainant, a Sikh security guard who wears a turban, was assigned to a Home Depot construction site.

The assistant store manager ordered him to wear a hard hat and, when the complainant refused due to his religious beliefs, ordered him to leave the premises.

The Tribunal found that the hard hat rule was selectively enforced against the complainant, as other workers were permitted in the same areas without hard hats.

The Tribunal also found that the assistant store manager subjected the complainant to discriminatory harassment by goading him to remove his turban and taunting him with termination.

The hearing was bifurcated, with the duty to accommodate and occupational health and safety issues deferred to a second stage.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested to intervene in the human rights complaint and sought to bifurcate the hearing.

The Proposed Intervener suggested that the first stage address the location of the complainant's duties without its participation, and if the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is engaged, it would participate in the second stage.

The complainant and the Commission consented to this approach.

The respondents consented to the intervention but argued the Proposed Intervener should participate throughout.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene and bifurcate the hearing, allowing the Proposed Intervener to participate only in the second stage if the interaction between the OHSA and the Human Rights Code needs to be addressed.