Peter Dailleboust

The applicant brought an application for judicial review regarding his employment with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant was attempting to resurrect claims that had been fully resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The settlement included a comprehensive release and a complete bar to any further proceedings, including judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Grievance Board, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his wrongful dismissal grievance because he had not been employed by the Crown for at least 12 months.

The applicant argued that new legislation, which removed the 12-month requirement for employees not on probation, should apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that jurisdiction is a substantive matter and the former legislative provisions governed the applicant's crystallized rights at the time of his dismissal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.