Michael L. Kennedy

The Union brought an application for interim relief to stay the Employer's use of a new electronic 'Bid Web' sign-up system for crew selection, arguing it was introduced unilaterally in breach of the collective agreement and caused harm by preventing junior drivers from knowing senior drivers' choices.

The Arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the standard sign-up system remained available and the Employer had addressed the Union's concerns.

The balance of harm favoured the Employer, given its investment in training and developing the electronic system.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for the production of the appellant's medical records and information regarding a subsequent insurance policy.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the only issue in the appeal was whether he had a reasonable explanation for submitting his claim late, making medical records irrelevant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that there was a medical issue in the appeal regarding the cost of a Disability Certificate, and that the requested documents were relevant to assessing the appellant's credibility and his explanation for the delay.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion to amend its amended statement of claim to add particulars of additional equipment allegedly damaged by defective hydraulic lubricant manufactured by the respondent, Greenland Corporation.

The motion judge had rejected the amendments on the basis that they constituted new, statute-barred causes of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in misinterpreting the pleadings and in conflating the discovery of the claim with the discovery of the extent of damages.

The court held that all alleged damage stemmed from a single cause—the defective hydraulic lubricant—and therefore constituted particulars of one claim rather than separate causes of action.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits, which the Insurer denied.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant met the criteria for non-earner benefits, as the accident materially contributed to her complete inability to carry on a normal life, despite pre-existing depression.

The Arbitrator also found the Applicant was enrolled in a full-time post-secondary program at the time of the accident, entitling her to the enhanced student rate of $320 per week after 104 weeks.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary to assist the Applicant in coping with chronic pain.

The Insurer was ordered to pay the benefits, interest, and the Applicant's arbitration expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to participate in the dispute resolution process or attend a scheduled case conference.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, and the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted both motions, removing counsel from the record and dismissing the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After the parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant later withdrew the application for arbitration.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the arbitration and for the expense hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant waited too long to withdraw the application and ordered the applicant to pay $1,300 in expenses to the insurer for the arbitration preparation.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the expense hearing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim.

The collision occurred when the plaintiff attempted an improper left turn from a through lane, striking the defendant's vehicle which was proceeding lawfully in the designated left-turn lane.

Applying the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant could not have reasonably avoided the collision.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when she was not hired as a probationary firefighter.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the applicant to pass a work-related fitness assessment.

A dispute arose over whether the applicant met the required fitness standards, with the respondent arguing she failed to meet its specific aerobic standard, while the applicant argued she passed the independent assessment as required by the settlement.

Both parties filed applications for contravention of settlement.

The Tribunal interpreted the settlement in favour of the applicant, finding that the agreement required her to pass the independent fitness assessment chosen by the respondent, rather than the specific standards set out in a former By-Law.

The defendant insurer moved under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order that a simplified procedure action against the insurer and a separate tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident be tried together or sequentially.

Although both proceedings arose from the same collision and involved overlapping liability issues, the court held that consolidation was not appropriate.

The insurance action involved a discrete fault determination issue and was ready for trial, while the tort action was significantly more complex and at an early procedural stage.

The court concluded that trying the actions together would cause delay and offer little efficiency benefit.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed caregiver benefits for the care of her elderly parents.

The Insurer denied the claim on the basis that the Applicant did not 'reside with' her parents, as she lived in a different apartment within the same building.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the Arbitrator found that the Applicant had moved to the building specifically to care for her parents and provided ongoing care.

Applying a liberal interpretation consistent with the consumer protection purpose of the Schedule, the Arbitrator concluded that the Applicant was 'residing' with her parents at the time of the accident and was not precluded from claiming caregiver benefits.

The applicant sought accident benefits after his vehicle struck an unknown object on the highway, causing mechanical failure and alleged soft tissue injuries.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing no accident occurred and the applicant was not injured, relying on an engineering expert and the applicant's initial statements.

The arbitrator found the applicant's version of events was corroborated by reliable records and that his initial statements were affected by a language barrier.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered an impairment as a result of the accident and ordered the insurer to pay $500 in expenses for the preliminary issue hearing.

The applicant and the insurer both sought their expenses following an arbitration hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator had previously awarded the applicant income replacement and housekeeping benefits for a limited duration, finding that the insurer relied on an equivocal medical report to stop benefits.

However, the arbitrator also found the applicant lacked credibility and had manufactured evidence.

Applying section 282(11) of the Insurance Act and the criteria in section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator exercised his discretion to order that each party bear their own expenses due to divided success and the applicant's credibility issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 and sought ongoing income replacement and housekeeping benefits, claiming the accident exacerbated a pre-existing right knee injury.

The insurer terminated benefits in February 2008 based on medical assessments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and symptom magnification.

Relying on medical experts, the arbitrator concluded the 2007 accident only temporarily exacerbated the pre-existing knee condition, which resolved by April 18, 2008.

The applicant was awarded income replacement and housekeeping benefits up to that date, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination was not unreasonable.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

Concurrently, his union grieved his termination and other matters, resulting in a 'Last Chance Agreement' and Minutes of Settlement that reinstated him and required him to withdraw all outstanding human rights applications.

The applicant subsequently sought to expedite his Tribunal application, arguing the Minutes were void or contrary to the Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily settled the matters and that allowing the application to proceed would violate the principle of finality and constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement regarding the same facts.

The applicant argued she should not be bound by the release because she did not understand what she was signing due to her mental state and a misunderstanding of its terms.

The Tribunal found the applicant was capable of understanding the release and had chosen to sign it to accept an early retirement offer.

The Tribunal held that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who required dialysis for a kidney condition, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing shift changes and ultimately terminating his employment.

He also alleged the union failed to properly represent him.

The applicant withdrew the application against the union during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding insufficient evidence that shift changes were refused for disability-related reasons.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was based on a series of bona fide misconduct incidents and was not a pretext for disability discrimination.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

The employer and union brought requests for early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the employer's request to dismiss allegations older than one year, finding they formed a series of incidents culminating in the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the complaint against the union regarding its handling of the termination grievance under section 45.1, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, as the OLRB had not addressed the discrimination issue, though the applicant was barred from re-litigating the OLRB's factual findings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union regarding a May 2006 accommodation request due to unexplained delay.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by encouraging him to resign in July 1999.

The application was filed almost two years later, in June 2001.

The applicant argued the delay was due to depression and financial constraints.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, finding that a delay of almost two years was unjustified, not adequately explained by the applicant's medical or financial circumstances, and highly prejudicial to the union and the employer.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.