Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a succinct interim decision, 2024 HRTO 225 (CanLII), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) explained when it might grant an application to expand the list of respondents to a human rights complaint. It’s not as simple as one might think. In this case, the complainant sought to add a former employer as a respondent in his individual, personal capacity, to her sex discrimination complaint. The targeted individual was a majority shareholder and director of the employer. . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) that the public is not entitled to see the mandate letters that the Premier of Ontario issued to his cabinet ministers in 2018. The SCC disagreed with the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), the unanimous Ontario Divisional Court and the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, all of whom concluded that the cabinet records exemption under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) did not apply to the letters.

In this post, I do . . . [more]

Legal procedures are often slow. “The slow wheels of justice,” as the saying goes. Within the immigration context, backlogs, delays, and lengthy processing take this saying to another level. Applications may take years. Families suffer from lengthy periods of separation while Visa Offices (some more than others) provide scant insight into their workflow. During the recent “modernization”, IRCC has added many online tools to address this perennial issue, including status bars, portals, and various means of communication. In certain situations, Officers are supposed to adhere to standard processing times.

For clients (or counsel) who reach a high level of frustration, . . . [more]

The Hague Convention on the Abolition of All Forms of Legalization (known as the Apostille Convention) is now in force in Canada. Here is a link to the text of the Convention.

The practical result is that to use Canadian public documents (including confirmation of notarial status and signatures) in about 120 foreign countries, one will not have to go through the two-step process of getting the document authenticated by the province (and/or the federal government) and then ‘legalized’ by the consulate (or embassy) of the country of destination. Here is a list of the countries that are parties . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In 2023 CanLII 111663 (BC LA), a British Columbia successive employer learned that it couldn’t take over with a totally clean slate. It ran into a roadblock when it tried to implement its plan to fire some incapacitated workers who were unlikely to ever return. While legal, perhaps, it ran up against the principle of estoppel, making it unfair to proceed as it wished. The case is a cautionary tale to unionized employers looking to change course on important issues. . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., Content Editor, First Reference Inc. A decision of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board, 2023 CanLII 115148 (ON GSB), confirms that dishonesty, attempts to shift blame and a lack of remorse are not a winning combination of factors for an employee seeking to overturn a disciplinary measure. In this case, the employee went AWOL for personal reasons, giving the employer a clear path to just cause for imposing discipline. . . . [more]

I was intrigued by the Ontario Court of Appeal’s “Supplementary Reasons” in Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc.v. Ontario (Attorney General) (“Supplementary Reasons”), recently reported in the December 15, 2023 Ontario Reports. On March 6, 2023, the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Working Families Coalition’s (“The Coalition”) challenge to the third party spending limits added to the Elections Finances Act (“EFA”). (I wrote a six post series on section 3 and other issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, using the Superior Court of Justice decisions (here and here) and the . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In September, 2023, the Chair of the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission decided that a female employee was indeed sexually harassed while she was employed with the employer. Therefore, she was awarded $15,000 in general damages for mental anguish, humiliation, affront to dignity and/or emotional injury. Additionally, the Panel ordered the employer to create an anti-harassment policy (accepting direction from the Panel), and to pay for sexual harassment training for all staff members in a form that was satisfactory to the Human Rights Commission. . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., content editor, First Reference Inc.

You only get one shot. One chance. A single try. No matter how you say it, in 2023 HRTO 1610 (CanLII), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario delivered this message to a would-be complainant, dismissing his claim. . . . [more]

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just dismissed two actions regarding claims under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The Court confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and similarly concluded that D lost her right of action under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Additionally, D’s family member also lost her right of action under the Family Law Act, as this claim was derivative in nature and dependent on D’s claim. The Court made a strong comment about . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

Under Ontario’s occupational health and safety legislation’s reprisal provisions, the employer in 2023 CanLII 73671 was able to show that its actions weren’t motivated by any ill-will toward the employee for filing a harassment complaint against her manager. The case offers a reminder to employers of the value of maintaining evidence that can show a chronology of key events. What on its face may appear to be nefarious retaliation may actually be the outcome of a planned organizational decision that was made for a valid business reason. . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

On September 29, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal decided that Google’s search engine service is subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Both Laskin J.A. and Gleason J.A. rejected all of Google’s arguments and swiftly dismissed Google’s appeal. However, there was a dissent in this case-Webb J.A. would have allowed the appeal. . . . [more]