Today

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For the week of December 4th to December 11th:

  1. Magder v. Ford 2012 ONSC 6929

    [1] The Appellant moves for a stay of the judgment of Hackland J. dated November 26, 2012, pending the hearing of his appeal from that judgment. The application judge removed the Appellant from his office as mayor of the City of Toronto, finding that he had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50 by speaking to and voting on a motion requiring him to repay donations made by others to a charitable foundation. The application judge concluded that the Appellant had a pecuniary interest at stake, and that his actions in speaking to and voting on the matter did not result from inadvertence or an error in judgment.

  2. Waterloo Catholic District School Board v CUPE, Local 2512 2012 CanLII 51844 (ON LA)

    The Union filed this grievance because of the failure of the Employer to post the position of Receptionist in the Education Centre. It says that the Employer violated Article 15 of the collective agreement along with other provisions. There is no dispute that the collective agreement was not followed but the Employer claims that it was justified in so doing because of the provisions of the Ontario Human rights Act (hereinafter OHRA) which obligate it, and the Union , to accommodate disabled employees.

  3. R. v. Zentner 2012 ABCA 332

    [1] The issue here is whether any kind of discharge, rather than a conviction, is proper for a string of deliberate commercial frauds by someone in a more or less fiduciary position.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Syndicat des infirmières, inhalothérapeutes, infirmières auxiliaires du Coeur du Québec (SIIIACQ) c. Centre hospitalier régional de Trois-Rivières 2012 QCCA 1867

[20] Les parties identifient deux questions litigieuses que je résume ainsi :

• La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en ne révisant pas la décision de l’arbitre de rejeter le moyen préliminaire fondé sur la tardiveté de l’avis de congédiement ?

• La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en ne révisant pas la décision de l’arbitre de rejeter le grief alors que le droit de l’employeur de requérir, dans un questionnaire pré-embauche, des renseignements personnels liés à l’état de santé d’une personne porte atteinte aux droits fondamentaux du salarié ?

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.