Roger Rowe

The accused sought an extension of time to bring an application to quash his committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of aggravated assault.

The request was brought approximately ten months after the committal order and was based on an alleged conflict of interest arising from one counsel representing multiple accused at the preliminary inquiry.

The court held that the evidence at the preliminary inquiry, including the complainant’s direct identification of the accused as the assailant, made committal inevitable.

The issue of conflict had not been raised before the preliminary inquiry judge, and the accused had acquiesced to continuing with the same counsel despite being advised of the potential conflict.

The court concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant extending the time to challenge the committal.

This is a costs decision following a one-day family law trial involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent (mother) was successful in obtaining sole custody and child support.

The court found that the applicant (father) acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, providing inconsistent financial information, and stopping child support payments despite having the ability to pay.

The court awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for support issues and partial indemnity basis for parenting issues, fixing costs at $2,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

The court also ordered that the father could not initiate further proceedings without proof of payment of the costs order.

The father sought joint custody and 50% parenting time (or at minimum 40%) with his eight-year-old son.

The mother sought sole custody, day access for the father, retroactive child support from January 1, 2011 based on imputed income of $70,000, and designation of the child as a beneficiary on the father's health plans.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, maintained the existing access schedule with minor modifications, imputed income to the father for the period of intentional unemployment, and ordered retroactive child support from July 1, 2011.

The father's poor communication with the mother, inconsistent parenting, failure to comply with court orders, and lack of respect for the mother's role as primary caregiver were determinative factors against joint custody.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application two and a half months after the conclusion of a related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding, missing the 60-day deadline under Rule 14.4.

The respondent and intervenor opposed the reactivation, arguing it was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's reasons for the delay were not entirely reasonable, the respondent and intervenor failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice resulting from the two-and-a-half-month delay.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time limit and allowed the request to reactivate the application.

The applicants sought to stay an ongoing coroner's inquest into the deaths of a mother and two children in a fire, pending judicial review of the coroner's refusal to expand the scope of the inquest and call certain witnesses regarding social services in the Jane-Finch community.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured completing the inquest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant's grievance had been settled.

The applicant disputed agreeing to the settlement and filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights proceedings pending the outcome of the Labour Relations Board proceedings.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board and several individuals, the Tribunal considered whether to remove certain personal respondents.

The Commission advised it would not proceed against four individuals, who were subsequently removed.

The Tribunal then analyzed whether to remove a fifth individual, a superintendent, applying factors such as corporate vicarious liability and whether her individual conduct was a central issue.

Finding no compelling reason to keep her as a party and no prejudice in her removal, the Tribunal removed her.

The Tribunal declined to remove a sixth individual whose conduct was central to the allegations.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed the consolidation of complaints and bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Commission lacked the authority to combine a newly referred reprisal complaint with a main complaint already before the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal exercised its own power to consolidate the proceedings to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring personal respondents would not face liability for the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases to expedite the process and provided further case management directions.

The respondents sought to bring a preliminary motion to address alleged deficiencies in the pleadings and disclosure provided by the complainant and the Commission, arguing they could not file their response until these issues were resolved.

The Tribunal found the motion premature, noting that preliminary and procedural objections should generally not be brought prior to a party filing its pleadings and making disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file their response and make disclosure, after which any remaining issues could be addressed at a pre-hearing conference or by motion.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's order declaring it a seeking employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant argued it was not a public sector agency because it provided health promotion and prevention programs, not direct treatment for addiction.

The Tribunal found that the phrase 'services related to addiction' in the Act's Appendix is broad enough to encompass programs aimed at preventing addiction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was confirmed as a seeking employer required to use the proxy method of evaluation.

The appellants challenged an order declining jurisdiction to hear their application in an immigration matter.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge properly exercised his discretion in declining jurisdiction and found no basis to interfere.

The court noted submissions concerning the proposed removal of the litigation guardian, who was also the children's caregiver, and observed that an application under s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act remained available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Inquiry and sought to introduce fresh evidence and claim Charter damages against the Board and the Human Rights Commission for delay.

The Divisional Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that the Board is not a suable entity, and that delay does not found a claim under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court also denied the appellant's request for an adjournment to file a companion application for judicial review, ordering the appeal to proceed on its merits.

The appellant, a woman with Canadian-born dependent children, was ordered deported.

She applied for an exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, which was denied without formal reasons, though she was later provided with the notes of the investigating immigration officer.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty of procedural fairness applied and required the provision of reasons, which was satisfied by the officer's notes.

However, the notes demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and the decision was an unreasonable exercise of discretion because it failed to give serious weight and consideration to the best interests of the appellant's children.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the complainant was sexually harassed by co-workers and that management's failure to address the harassment led to her dismissal.

The Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for wage loss, applying a common sense test to limit recovery to the period before intervening events broke the chain of causality.

The Board also awarded $10,000 in general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination and $5,000 for mental anguish, noting the respondents' reckless disregard for the complainant's rights.

A request for legal costs was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment was served with criminal charges for attempting to obstruct justice and fraud, arising from alleged inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Commission and the complainant requested a stay of the human rights hearing to protect her against self-incrimination under the Charter.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the request, finding that s. 11(c) of the Charter did not apply because the human rights hearing was not a proceeding against the complainant.

The Board held that the complainant was a compellable witness and that the criminal court would determine the admissibility of her testimony.

The Board directed the hearing to proceed with the respondents' case before considering whether further re-cross-examination of the complainant on damages was appropriate.