Susan M. Vella

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a teacher, alleged that her principal sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the school board reprised against her.

The plaintiff's union had declined to pursue a grievance on her behalf due to the passage of time.

The court applied the Weber test and held that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

The court found no 'remedial gap' that would grant it jurisdiction simply because the union chose not to pursue the grievance.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Master's order severing their civil claims for historic sexual assault against a family member into separate actions.

The court considered the joinder provisions under Rules 5.01 and 5.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the claims arose from the same series of occurrences and whether common issues of fact justified joinder.

The court held that allegations of sexual assault against siblings occurring in the same location and general time period could constitute a series of occurrences and involve common factual issues.

Concerns about similar fact reasoning and potential tailoring of evidence were found to be matters better managed by the trial judge through evidentiary rulings and case management.

The appeal was allowed and the Master's severance order was set aside without prejudice to a future severance motion before the trial judge.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the alleged transmission of a sexually transmitted disease during their marriage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the statement of defence as scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that a spousal relationship could not give rise to a per se or ad hoc fiduciary duty to disclose a known or suspected sexually transmitted disease.

The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, striking several paragraphs of the statement of defence that were inflammatory, irrelevant, or improperly pleaded motive.