Monisha Ambwani

The appellants, a postal workers' union and its representatives, sought a declaration that federal back-to-work legislation ending rotating strikes in 2018 unjustifiably limited their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed the application as moot because the legislation was spent and declined to exercise discretion to decide on the merits under the Borowski criteria.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed the application was moot and deferred to the discretionary decision not to hear it on the merits.

In the alternative, the court found the legislation limited s. 2(d) rights but was justified under s. 1, and that neither the Prime Minister's public statement nor the Act limited s. 2(b) rights.

Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada, setting aside the conditional certification of a class action brought by Andrew Knisley, a veteran, regarding the administration of disability benefits by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The court found that conditional certification is not permitted under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether an identifiable class exists.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim in negligence disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant, Valerie Jacob, a recipient of Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit (CPP-D), challenged the eligibility criteria for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canadian Recovery Benefit (CRB) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She argued that the $5,000 income threshold and the exclusion of CPP-D from eligible income sources violated her equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed her claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the income threshold and the exclusion of CPP-D did constitute a breach of s. 15(1) due to their disproportionate impact on disabled workers.

However, the Court further concluded that this breach was justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter, given the emergency context of the pandemic and the government's need for a simple, fast mechanism for benefit delivery, along with subsequent ameliorative measures like relaxed Employment Insurance rules.

The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) challenged the constitutionality of the Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act (PSRCA), SC 2018, c 25, arguing it infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The legislation ended a series of rotating strikes and imposed a mediation-arbitration process.

The court found the application moot because the PSRCA was spent legislation, having led to new collective agreements, and there was no live controversy or suitable remedy.

However, in obiter, the court stated that if the matter were not moot, the PSRCA would infringe s. 2(d) but would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as it constituted a minimal impairment due to its fair and neutral dispute resolution mechanism, unlike previous unconstitutional back-to-work legislation.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of veterans who experienced delays in the processing of disability benefits.

The court applied the five-part test under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for breach of s. 7 of the Charter, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

However, the court found the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court certified the class action for the negligence claim, conditional on the plaintiff amending the class definition.

The Plaintiff, a corporation, brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) for leave to be represented by its sole shareholder, officer, and director, a non-lawyer.

The Defendant opposed, arguing a lack of demonstrated circumstances, particularly regarding financial inability to retain counsel.

The court granted leave, noting that while the proposed representative showed some procedural deficiencies, the corporation was a closely held "one-man company," making the issue a "self-inflicted wound." The order was granted without prejudice to the Defendant's right to seek review, withdrawal, or conditions if circumstances require.

This decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning a s. 15 Charter challenge to COVID-19 benefit programs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) sought leave to intervene as friends of the court.

The appellant consented to both interventions, while the respondent opposed ISAC's motion.

The court granted both motions, finding that both interveners would provide unique and useful contributions, particularly on issues of remedy, retroactive application of invalidity declarations, and the application of substantive equality analysis in the context of disability and income security programs.

The applicant, Valerie Jacob, challenged the $5,000 income eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), asserting it violated her section 15(1) Charter right due to her physical disability.

The court applied the two-step test from R. v. Sharma, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a disproportionate impact based on disability (first step) and that the criteria did not reinforce, perpetuate, or exacerbate disadvantage (second step).

The court concluded the $5,000 threshold was not arbitrary, being based on a minimum workforce attachment benchmark, and applied equally to disabled and non-disabled individuals who did not meet it.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to rectify a mutual release signed with Elmara Construction Co. Limited, asserting it was mistakenly drafted as mutual instead of a one-sided release from Elmara to Canada, contrary to their settlement agreement.

Elmara did not oppose the rectification.

AC Metal Fabricating Limited, a plaintiff in the broader litigation, opposed the motion, arguing the mutual release was intended or that their own mutual release with Canada already precluded Canada's future warranty claims against Elmara.

The court found that the mutual release failed to accurately record the parties' prior agreement, which intended a one-sided release from Elmara to Canada, preserving Canada's warranty rights.

The court held that the mistake was common to Canada and Elmara, or alternatively, a unilateral mistake by Canada that Elmara knew or ought to have known about, and allowing Elmara to benefit would be unconscionable.

The motion for rectification was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint of employment discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant argued the investigation was insufficient and the decision unreasonable.

The Federal Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because the investigation report failed to analyze the core allegation that workplace harassment caused the applicant to fall sick, a flaw the Commission itself had previously acknowledged but never remedied.

The application was granted and the matter remitted back to the Commission.

The applicants, the RCMP Registrar of Firearms and a section head, sought to quash subpoenas requiring them to testify at a reference hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice regarding the revocation of firearms registration certificates.

The respondents had obtained the subpoenas under section 698 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice held that a reference under the Firearms Act is not a proceeding to which the Criminal Code applies, as it is more akin to an administrative or civil proceeding.

Consequently, the subpoenas were quashed.