Michael S. Dunn

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.

The appellants, owners and patrons of adult entertainment parlours, challenged the constitutional validity of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and sought damages under private law causes of action.

The motion judge struck most of the claims but allowed the division of powers claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the private law and Charter claims.

On cross-appeal, the Court held that the division of powers claim should also have been struck, as it is plain and obvious that the pith and substance of the Act is to promote health, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.