3 total
The court dismissed the wrongful dismissal appeal as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim.
The motion judge dismissed the claim on two independent grounds: first, that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the claim arose from the interpretation and application of a collective agreement; and second, that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the limitation period issue alone, finding that although the appellant's claim was discoverable in late April or mid-May 2020, limitation periods were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic until September 14, 2020.
The two-year limitation period therefore commenced on September 14, 2020, and expired on September 14, 2022.
The appellant commenced her claim on October 27, 2022, which was outside the limitation period.
Judicial review dismissed; IPC reasonably concluded requested records were not in school board's custody or control.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dismissing his appeal regarding a freedom of information request.
The applicant had requested records from the school board relating to an independent investigator retained by the Integrity Commissioner to investigate a trustee.
The IPC found that the requested records were not in the custody or control of the school board and that the board had conducted a reasonable search.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision, finding no error in the IPC's application of the custody or control test and no denial of procedural fairness in the IPC's refusal to merge the applicant's appeals.
The court conditionally dismissed an impecunious, self-represented plaintiff's action for failing to pay previous costs awards.
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action under rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to her failure to pay costs awarded against her in two separate court Orders totaling $12,500.
The plaintiff argued impecuniosity.
The court, while acknowledging the plaintiff's impecuniosity, found that her ongoing litigation was vexatious and that impecuniosity was not a shield for unreasonable conduct or a failure to abide by court orders.
The court conditionally dismissed the plaintiff's action, ordering her to pay the outstanding costs by a specific deadline, and fixed additional costs for the current motion.
