Stephanie Young

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant, a transgender man with deteriorating health due to ALS, brought an application alleging discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

He requested that the Tribunal anonymize the application to prevent him from being publicly outed, and expedite the proceeding due to his health.

The respondents consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and urgent, and set a timetable for mediation.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of his AODA disability customer service module and certain pay stubs.

The respondent produced the pay stubs but indicated it did not have the AODA document.

The Tribunal found the AODA document to be arguably relevant and ordered the respondent to produce it if it is in its possession or control.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of sexual harassment and claimed the respondent's counsel intimidated him by using couriers and the word 'served'.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the new allegations were untimely and would cause significant delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the intimidation claims, noting the respondent's actions were appropriate, and ordered the applicant to cease using disrespectful language toward the respondent and its counsel.

The applicant filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking production of his full human resources file, accommodations for the hearing, and permission to file additional medical evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the entire human resources file, permitted the applicant to file additional medical evidence, and directed the applicant to provide his pre-hearing disclosure, including witness statements and documents, by a specified deadline.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought requests for the production of documents and for anonymization, a publication ban, and a sealing order.

The Tribunal granted the production request in part, ordering the respondent to produce one arguably relevant email regarding a vacation policy.

The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization and publication bans, finding that the applicant's depression and anxiety did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The Tribunal also issued directions limiting the applicant's voluminous communications with the Tribunal.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The revocation followed a series of incidents involving workplace harassment of a nurse and unauthorized access to her personal health records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Board applied the correct test under the Public Hospitals Act, did not improperly reverse the burden of proof regarding the appellant's mental health claims, and reached a reasonable and proportionate decision given the egregious nature of the past misconduct.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay occurred because he initially filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in error.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as the applicant failed to make timely inquiries about the correct forum before the limitation period expired.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the application remained dismissed.

The moving party, a former employee of the respondent hospital, sought to review an order dismissing her motion for a stay and a capacity assessment.

She had a history of attempting to obtain medical opinions stating she lacked legal capacity to conduct proceedings, but no such opinions were provided.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the previous order, noting that the moving party could request her own capacity assessment under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The motion to review and the motion to admit fresh evidence were dismissed.

The defendant moved to strike a self-represented plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and on limitation grounds.

The court held the pleading was vague, uncertain, and failed to identify the essential elements of any recognizable breach of contract or wrongful dismissal claim.

Applying ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court further held that any claim arising from the alleged failure to contact the plaintiff after re-hiring was discovered in 2010 and the 2014 action was therefore statute-barred.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed with fixed costs.