Susan Munn

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

A case management conference was held in an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce over 4,700 pages of additional materials that were not included in the tribunal's official record of proceedings.

The court directed that the issue of the proper record be determined at a subsequent motion, outlining the narrow exceptions under which new evidence may be admitted on judicial review.

The court also provided directions regarding the applicant's proposed notice of constitutional question.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The court scheduled the hearing for January 13, 2021, dismissed the application against personal respondents on consent, and set deadlines for the service and filing of the Record of Proceedings, factums, and other materials using Caselines.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision dismissing a grievance that sought to hold the employer vicariously liable for a fellow employee's tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The fellow employee had used the employer's equipment to access the grievor's Employment Insurance records.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

Applying the principles from Bazley v Curry, the court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the wrongful act was not sufficiently related to conduct authorized by the employer to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a statement of claim arising from a long-running workplace dispute involving a former unionized public employee and a settlement of employment grievances.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding pension buy-back rights and additional promises allegedly made during settlement negotiations.

The court found the claim was brought well outside the applicable limitation period under the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule did not apply because the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing many years earlier.

The pleadings also failed to disclose the necessary elements of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation and amounted to an attempt to relitigate issues already decided by administrative tribunals and multiple courts.

The court further held that the essential character of the dispute arose from a collective agreement and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration regime rather than the court.