Indexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, 2013.
|
|
- Junior Simmons
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Canadian National Railway (applicant) v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents) and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication (intervenors) (T ; 2013 FC 117) Indexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, Summary: Seeley complained that her employer, the Canadian National Railway (CN), discriminated against her based on family status by failing to accommodate her parental childcare obligations and by terminating her employment. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal allowed the complaint. CN applied for judicial review. The Federal Court dismissed the application. Civil Rights - Topic 983 Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless. Civil Rights - Topic 985 Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983]. Civil Rights - Topic 988 Discrimination - Employment - On basis of family, civil or marital status - [See Civil
2 Rights - Topic 983]. Civil Rights - Topic 1164 Discrimination - Remedies - Damages - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983]. Civil Rights - Topic 7115 Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983]. Civil Rights - Topic 7185 Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983]. Cases Noticed: Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway Co., [2006] C.H.R.D. No. 33, refd to. [para. 19]. Brown v. Canada (Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise), [1993] C.H.R.D. No. 7, refd to. [para. 19]. Health Sciences Association of British Columbia v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society (2004), 196 B.C.A.C. 236; 322 W.A.C. 236; 240 D.L.R.(4th) 479; 2004 BCCA 260, refd to. [para. 20]. Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 22]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone et al., [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.022; 2013 FC 113, refd to. [para. 31]. University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 33] Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Dawson Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33]. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 34]. Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 33]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 36]. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat. Johnstone v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 306 F.T.R. 271; 2007 FC 36, refd to. [para. 41]. Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 41]. Scheuneman v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 F.C. 365; 176 F.T.R. 59 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 266 N.R. 154 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41]. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46]. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. A et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 403; 294 N.R. 140; 166
3 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 49]. B. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) - see Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. A et al. McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'hôpital général de Montréal et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161; 356 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 50]. Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 56]. Schaap v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), [1988] C.H.R.D. No. 4, refd to. [para. 61]. Brown v. Canada (Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise), [1993] C.H.R.D. No. 7, refd to. [para. 62]. Wight v. Ontario (Office of the Legislative Assembly), [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 13 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 63]. Rennie v. Peaches and Cream Skin Care Ltd., 2006 AHRC 13, refd to. [para. 63]. Canada Post v. Canada Union of Postal Workers, [2006] C.L.A.D. No. 371, refd to. [para. 63]. Rajotte v. The President of the Canadian Border Services Agency et al., 2009 PSST 0025, refd to. [para. 63]. Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 65]. Canadian National Railway v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) - see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 73]. Tranchemontagne et al. v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) (2010), 269 O.A.C. 137; 2010 ONCA 593, refd to. [para. 73]. Armstrong v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (2010), 283 B.C.A.C. 167; 480 W.A.C. 167; 2010 BCCA 56, refd to. [para. 74]. Whyte v. Canadian National Railway, [2010] C.H.R.D. No. 22, refd to. [para. 77]. Richards v. Canadian National Railway, [2010] C.H.R.D. No. 24, refd to. [para. 77]. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 v. Power Stream Inc., [2009] O.L.A.A. No. 447, refd to. [para. 80]. Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245, refd to. [para. 100]. Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 104]. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 3(1) [para. 59]. Counsel: Richard Charney, William Hlibchuk and Brian Gottheil, for the applicant; Simon Renouf and Shasta Desbarats, for the respondent, Denise Seeley; Daniel Poulin and Sheila Osborne-Brown, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights
4 Commission; Cathy Pike, for the intervenor, Ontario Human Rights Commission; John Craig and Michelle MacGillivray, for the intervenor, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication. Solicitors of Record: Ogilvy Renault LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant; Simon Renouf Professional Corporation, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, Denise Seeley; Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission; Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Ontario Human Rights Commission; Heenan Blaikie LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication. This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 2, 2011, by Mandamin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 1, Editor: Gary W. McLaughlin Application dismissed. Civil Rights - Topic 985 Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless.
5 Civil Rights - Topic 988 Discrimination - Employment - On basis of family, civil or marital status - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless. Civil Rights - Topic 1164 Discrimination - Remedies - Damages - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless. Civil Rights - Topic 7115
6 Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless. Civil Rights - Topic 7185 Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - Seeley was employed by the Canadian National Railway (CN) as a conductor, but was on laid off status - CN recalled her to report for a temporary assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia - She advised that she had childcare issues and was granted a 30 day extension of the reporting deadline - She requested that CN relieve her from reporting on a compassionate basis under the collective agreement - CN did not respond to the request - Further extensions resulted in a deadline of June 30, On July 4, 2005, CN terminated her employment for failure to report to work - Seeley filed a complaint of discrimination based on family status - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that family status included parental child care obligations - Seeley had established a prima facie case of discrimination where her parental duties and obligations combined with CN's rules made her unable to participate equally and fully in employment with CN - CN failed to establish that accommodating Seeley would have constituted undue hardship - The Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed CN to review its accommodation policy, reinstate Seeley and to pay her compensation for lost earnings, $15,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for reckless conduct - The Federal Court, applying the reasonableness standard, affirmed the findings that parental childcare obligations came within "family status", there was prima facie discrimination and CN had not met its duty to accommodate - With respect to the compensation, the tribunal had a reasonable basis to conclude that CN's conduct was reckless.
Indexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Mactavish, J. April 18, 2012.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International (respondents)
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.
Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationCase Name: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley
Page 1 Case Name: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley Between Canadian National Railway, Applicant, and Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission, Respondents, and Ontario Human Rights Commission,
More informationAnd In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.
In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationIndexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court of Appeal Noël, Mainville and Webb, JJ.A. March 31, 2014.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Nanakmeet Kaur Kandola by her guardian at law Malkiat Singh Kandola (respondent) (A-154-13; 2014 FCA 85) Indexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister
More informationIndexed As: Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court Shore, J. May 26, 2014.
Oscar Iyamuremye, Jean de Dieu Ntibeshya, Jeanine Umuhire et Karabo Greta Ineza (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration (partie défenderesse) (IMM-5282-13; 2014 CF 494;
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationIndexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission
Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationBeyond Disability Accommodating Family Status and Religion
McCarthy Tétrault Advance Building Capabilities for Growth Beyond Disability Accommodating Family Status and Religion Donovan Plomp Shana Wolch McCarthy Tétrault S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. / mccarthy.ca Duty
More informationIndexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. February 14, 2013.
Kerry Murphy (appellant) v. Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global (respondents) (A-487-11; 2013 FCA 38) Indexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA APPELLANT - and- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST
More informationProceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Dianna Louise Parsons, Michael Herbert Cruickshanks, David Tull, Martin Henry Griffen, Anna Kardish, Elsie Kotyk, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Kotyk,
More informationIndexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. March 1, 2013.
J.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (34284; 2013 SCC 12; 2013 CSC 12) Indexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin,
More informationIndexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian
More informationFamily Status Accommodation: The Road to an Amalgamated Approach
Western Journal of Legal Studies Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 2 July 2012 Family Status Accommodation: The Road to an Amalgamated Approach Melody Jahanzadeh The University of Western Ontario, mjahanza@uwo.ca
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationSa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)
Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon
More informationIndexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents)
More informationRegina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231)
Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal
More informationHer Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.)
Her Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.) Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Gorman, P.C.J. March 2, 2015. Summary: The accused
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationIndexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.
Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (appellant) v. Guiseppe Figliola, Kimberley Sallis, Barry Dearden and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (respondents) and Attorney General of British
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationMEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF AIR CANADA (A )
Court File nos: A-105-14, A-111-14, A-112-14 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ROBERT ADAMSON ET AL. and AIR CANADA and AIR CANADA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Appellants and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Court File Nos: A-105-14, A-111-14, A-112-14 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Between: ROBERT ADAMSON ET AL and AIR CANADA and AIR CANADA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Appellants -AND- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54) Indexed As: R. v. Sarrazin (R.) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie,
More informationRichard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
Richard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 DATE: 20120313 DOCKET: C53665 Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Shaw and Chief William Blair Appellants and Ronald Phipps
More informationIndexed As: Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Community Legal Assistance Society,
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationIndexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada. Federal Court of Appeal Pelletier, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. September 25, 2012.
Air Canada (appellant) v. Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (respondents) and The Commissioner of Official Languages (intervener) (A-358-11; 2012 FCA 246; 2012 CAF 246) Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air
More informationIndexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.
Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products
More informationIndexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.
Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
More informationIndexed As: Bank of Montreal v. Rogozinsky. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Judicial District of Edmonton Schlosser, Master December 16, 2014.
Bank of Montreal (plaintiff and defendant by counterclaim) v. Aileen J. Rogozinsky also known as Aileen Janet Rogozinsky (defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim) (1403 09800; 2014 ABQB 771) Indexed As:
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationIndexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of Appeal Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A. March 14, 2013.
Gisèle Ouellette (applicant/appellant) v. Saint-André, an incorporated Rural Community (respondent) (89-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 21) Indexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of
More informationIndexed As: Reference Re Securities Act
In The Matter Of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, dated May 26, 2010 (33718; 2011 SCC 66; 2011 CSC 66)
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: R. v. Spencer (M.D.)
Matthew David Spencer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Alberta, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canadian
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO DECISION
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: LINA ROCHA Applicant -and- PARDONS AND WAIVERS OF CANADA, A DIVISION OF 1339835 ONTARIO LIMITED Respondent DECISION Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: November
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Randy William Parish (appellant) (C47004) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Thomas J.
More informationIBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd.
IBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella,
More informationIndexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. Federal Court O'Keefe, J. September 5, 2014.
The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (plaintiffs) v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (defendant) (T-2051-10; 2014 FC 844) Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v.
More informationThe Ontario Human Rights Code and the Right to Accommodation in the Workplace for Employees with Disabilities
Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 16 Article 7 2001 The Ontario Human Rights Code and the Right to Accommodation in the Workplace for Employees with Disabilities Judith Keene Follow this and additional
More informationCase Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Andro Rocha, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2015] F.C.J. No. 1087 2015 FC 1070 Docket:
More informationHer Majesty The Queen v. Clifford Dale Lawler (accused) (2011 MBPC 53) Indexed As: R. v. Lawler (C.D.)
Her Majesty The Queen v. Clifford Dale Lawler (accused) (2011 MBPC 53) Indexed As: R. v. Lawler (C.D.) Manitoba Provincial Court Winnipeg Centre Smith, P.C.J. July 12, 2011. Summary: The accused was injured
More informationIndexed As: William v. British Columbia et al. British Columbia Court of Appeal Levine, Tysoe and Groberman, JJ.A. June 27, 2012.
Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Her
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO INTERIM DECISION
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: Tonka Misetich Applicant -and- Value Village Inc. and Savers Inc. Respondents 2014 HRTO 1781 (CanLII -and- Ontario Human Rights Commission Intervenor INTERIM
More informationJanuary 20, Breakfast at Your Desk. Effective, Practical Advice BROUGHT TO YOU BY. airdberlis.com
January 20, 2015 Breakfast at Your Desk Effective, Practical Advice BROUGHT TO YOU BY airdberlis.com Cases airdberlis.com HYDRO-QUÉBEC SCFP-FTQ Indexed as: Hydro-Québec Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVISIONAL COURT) SHERYL ABBEY. -and-
Court File No.: 476/16 BETWEEN: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVISIONAL COURT) SHERYL ABBEY -and- Applicant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND
More informationWORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian Human Rights Commission from the Federal Court
The Canadian Bar Association 12 th Annual National Administrative Law and Labour & Employment Law CLE Conference November 25 26, 2011 Ottawa, Ontario WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65 DATE: 20121129 DOCKET: 34205 BETWEEN: Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Appellant and
More informationPARWINDER SADANA. and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20131002 Docket: T-1568-12 Citation: 2013 FC 1005 Ottawa, Ontario, October 2, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: PARWINDER SADANA Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 DATE: 20111028 DOCKET: 33507 BETWEEN: Canadian Human Rights Commission and Donna Mowat
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia,
More informationFirst Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. - and - Assembly of First Nations. - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2016 CHRT 10 Date: April 26, 2016 File No.: T1340/7008 Between: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada
More informationIndexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. and Neil Godfrey (appellants) v. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Canada Co./Microsoft Canada CIE (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener) (34282; 2013 SCC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 Date: 20081031 Docket: S075547 Registry: Vancouver Between: PHS Community
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationWillis & Winkler on Leading Labour Cases 2010
Willis & Winkler on Leading Labour Cases 2010 Elaine B. Willis Warren K. Winkler Canada Law Book A Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. 240 Edward St., Aurora, Ontario, L4G 3S9 www.canadalawbook.ca #THE
More informationIndexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A. January 29, 2015.
Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant) (C58338; 2015 ONCA 55) Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Administrative Law Notes for IV.1-11: Standards of Review IV.1: General Principles FN1. C.U.P.E., Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp. (1979), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227 (S.C.C.); Syndicat national des employés
More informationTHE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION PANEL. IN THE MATTER OF the NWT Human Rights Act, S.N.W.T., 2002, c.
THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION PANEL IN THE MATTER OF the NWT Human Rights Act, S.N.W.T., 2002, c. 18 as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint BETWEEN: ELIZABETH PORTMAN Appellant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10 DATE: 20120316 DOCKET: 33651 BETWEEN: Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate
More informationFEDERAL COURT. THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS. - and -
FEDERAL COURT Court File No. B E T W E E N : THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS - and - Applicants THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION REFUGEES AND
More informationHuman Rights Complaints. David Schulze DIONNE SCHULZE
Human Rights Complaints David Schulze DIONNE SCHULZE PBLI Canadian Aboriginal Law 2013 Forum Ottawa November 26 & 27, 2013 Page i Table of contents I. Prologue... 1 II. The problem: Aboriginal inequality...
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and
Date: 20141031 Docket: A-407-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 252 Present: WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Appellants and CANADIAN DOCTORS FOR REFUGEE CARE,
More informationJAN E the person named as petitioner in the style of proceedings above SUPREME COURT VANCOUVER REGISTRY PETITION TO THE COURT
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY JAN 18 2017 17.0 5 1 4 No. Vancouver Registry BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the Matter of the decision of the Delegate of the
More informationSubstantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)
May 2013 Municipal Law Section Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) By Scott McAnsh Antrim Truck Stop is located just off Highway
More informationPRIVACY DURING A HEARING: ACCESS TO TRIBUNAL DOCUMENTS
PRIVACY DURING A HEARING: ACCESS TO TRIBUNAL DOCUMENTS by Tamara L. Hunter Associate Counsel, Head of the Privacy Law Compliance Group, Davis LLP for 2010 Canadian Bar Association National Administrative
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) Pension Committee v. State Street Bank and Trust Co. et al.
The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee (plaintiff) v. State Street Bank and Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors Ltd./Conseillers en Gestion State Street Ltée (defendants) (Hfx.
More informationCHAPTER SIX: HUMAN RIGHTS
CHAPTER SIX: HUMAN RIGHTS Edited By: Dylan Williams With the Assistance of: Dan Soiseth of CLAS BC Current as of June 28, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. GOVERNING LEGISLATION AND RESOURCES...
More informationFAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES DISCRIMINATION. An International Review of Approaches to Accommodating Family Caregiving Obligations 1
FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES DISCRIMINATION An International Review of Approaches to Accommodating Family Caregiving Obligations 1 Jane has been an associate lawyer with a large firm for the last 5 years. Her
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA. -and- GILLES CARON
File No.: 33092 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA -and- Appellant (Appellant) GILLES CARON - and - Respondent
More informationCase Name: Chein v. Tim Hortons Inc.
Page 1 Case Name: Chein v. Tim Hortons Inc. IN THE MATTER OF the Human Rights Code R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended) AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
More informationUNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISCRIMINATION UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND SECTION 15 OF THE CHARTER
UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISCRIMINATION UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND SECTION 15 OF THE CHARTER Jennifer Koshan 1 In this paper, I review the approaches to discrimination under human rights legislation
More informationIN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. 17 (2 nd SUPP.)
Date: 20170222 Docket: T-1000-15 Citation: 2017 FC 214 Ottawa, Ontario, February 22, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McDonald IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationCanada s Visible Minorities: Andrew Cardozo and Ravi Pendakur
Canada s Visible Minorities: 1967-2017 Andrew Cardozo and Ravi Pendakur Introduction Introductory remarks Demographic overview Labour market outcomes Policy initiatives Some defining moments Demographic
More informationJEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150326 Docket: IMM-6847-13 Citation: 2015 FC 384 Ottawa, Ontario, March 26, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: JEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationInquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation
Inquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION February 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Inquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation
More informationKhosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
More informationIMM FC Hassan Samimifar (Plaintiff) 2006 FC 1301 (CanLII)
IMM-6468-03 2006 FC 1301 Hassan Samimifar (Plaintiff) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Her Majesty the Queen (Defendants) INDEXED AS: SAMIMIFAR v. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: DOCKET: 32987
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: 20110128 DOCKET: 32987 BETWEEN: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all
More informationSERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20141124 Docket: T-871-14 Citation: 2014 FC 1120 Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
More informationDemographic and Economic Trends and Issues Canada, Ontario and the GTA
Demographic and Economic Trends and Issues Canada, Ontario and the GTA Presented by Tom McCormack The Centre for Spatial Economics www.c4se.com Presented to Professional Marketing Research Society Toronto
More informationEducation as a Human Right
Education as a Human Right Lindsay A. Waddell 3 rd Floor 195 Alexander Street Vancouver, BC V6A 1N8 T: 604-689-4457 1-888-689-4457 lindsaywaddell@unionlawyers.com www.unionlawyers.com 1 Overview Where
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationSUBMISSIONS OF THE COMPLAINANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE RECONSIDERATION REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF the complaints filed by Candice Beal, Veronica Hoadley, Andrea Koritko, Tanya Middlebrook, Radmila Sarach, Diann Shivtahal, Patricia Sinclair, Janice Smallwood, Carrie Steenburg, Petra
More informationCHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24
CHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24 Carters Professional Corporation / Société professionnelle Carters Barristers, Solicitors & Trade-mark Agents / Avocats et agents de marques de commerce JANUARY 23, 2009 Editor:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA)
Court File No. 35623 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: British Columbia Teachers Federation And Surrey Teachers Association and APPELLANTS
More information