3 total
The court struck down the TTC Act, finding that its blanket prohibition on the right to strike violated s. 2(d) of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1.
The Applicants challenged the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, arguing it infringed their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by prohibiting the right to strike and replacing it with compulsory binding interest arbitration.
The court found the Act substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining and was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the TTC was not an "essential service" in the constitutional sense, and the economic and equity concerns did not justify the complete prohibition of the right to strike.
The Act was declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
Successful respondent awarded $4,800 in costs, payable in monthly installments due to applicant's limited income.
Following a trial regarding parenting time where the respondent was successful in obtaining an order for supervised access, the respondent sought costs of $10,960.
The applicant argued against a costs order due to her limited income from ODSP and her role as the primary caregiver.
The court found the applicant had acted unreasonably during the litigation but acknowledged her financial circumstances and the potential impact on the child.
The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $4,800, payable at $200 per month.
The court granted the father supervised parenting time after rejecting the mother's uncorroborated allegations of family violence.
This trial concerned the issue of parenting time for the father (respondent) with the parties' three-year-old daughter.
The mother (applicant) sought an order for no parenting time, alleging highly abusive and stalking behaviours by the father.
The father sought supervised access to develop a relationship with his daughter, alleging the mother had unjustly denied him access through fabrications.
The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, finding the mother's evidence inconsistent and lacking corroboration, while the father's evidence was found to be clear, convincing, and cogent.
The court concluded that the mother had unreasonably withheld the father's parenting time and that it was in the child's best interests to commence supervised access.
