S. Shrybman

The respondent's counsel advised the court of a potential conflict of interest.

The applicants indicated they had no concerns and were content to proceed as scheduled.

Given the parties' positions, the panel directed that the matter would proceed as scheduled.

The defendants moved to strike or stay the Canadian action brought against them by the plaintiffs, arguing it was an abuse of process or should be stayed due to a parallel U.S. action commenced by related plaintiffs against related defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the U.S. action involved different defendants, different causes of action, different laws, and different jurisdictions.

The court held that the plaintiffs' conduct was not vexatious or oppressive, and the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice to justify a permanent or temporary stay.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of s. 46(3) of the Fair Elections Act ahead of a federal election.

The impugned provision removed the Chief Electoral Officer's discretion to authorize voter identification cards as a valid form of identification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.