Patricia C. Hennessy

The employee filed a reprisal complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns.

The employer subsequently brought a motion asking the Board to state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court, alleging the employee improperly distributed documents.

The Board consolidated the two proceedings over the employee's objection.

The employee did not testify, and the Board dismissed both the reprisal complaint and the contempt motion.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding the consolidation breached the employee's right to a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the consolidation was not patently unreasonable and did not breach the duty of fairness, as the evidence would have been admissible in the reprisal complaint regardless, and the employee was not 'charged with an offence' under section 11 of the Charter during the Board stage of the contempt proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal found her impairments were not sufficiently verified.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal erred in law by applying an overly strict standard for verification and by failing to consider the cumulative effect of her physical and mental impairments.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was declared eligible for income support.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that declared a mortgage null and void based on promissory estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword, and the respondent had improperly used it to seek a declaration.

The Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial to determine whether there was consideration for the mortgage, as the trial judge had failed to make a finding on that issue.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for extra-judicial efforts to shut down a restaurant and holding that they were not entitled to terminate the respondents' tenancy.

The appellants alleged bias on the part of the trial judge and substantive errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the threshold for bias was not met and the allegation was not raised at the earliest opportunity.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the merits and confirmed the individual appellant's personal liability for tortious acts.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment finding that they wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the respondent was not in arrears of rent but had a credit in its favour, and therefore the appellants were not entitled to terminate the lease.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the respondent engaged in wrongful conduct to mislead them.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that its defence was not valid against the respondent's claim under a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the doctrine of equitable set-off does not apply to claims under bills of exchange or promissory notes.

The court also found that a stay under Rule 20.08 was unavailable because the appellant's other action was against a different party.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board directing his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The index offence was criminal harassment.

The Board found that the appellant suffered from a major mental illness, continued to have feelings for the victim, and would likely discontinue his medication without external controls.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.