The Court’s Power to Issue Injunctions Against “Persons Unknown”

Can the courts make orders against unidentified persons not named in the action or named only in proxy as "Jane Doe" and "John Doe"? Or must the persons enjoined be sued and named before an order is enforceable against them?

Those were the questions answered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1996 case of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, 1996 CanLII 165 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 1048.

Surreptitious Recording of One’s Coworkers Cause for Dismissal: BC Supreme Court

Is the surreptitious recording of one’s fellow employees cause for dismissal?

In Shalagin v Mercer Celgar Limited Partnership, 2022 BCSC 112 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that it was. Hold the phone.

The Legal Effect of a Snow Day

What is the legal effect of a SNOW DAY?

As a child, the practical effect of a wicked snowstorm was the cancelation of school- a “snow day.” A free pass to do whatever one wanted. Un cadeau.

But, is an Ontario employer required to pay its employees for the day, or at least comply with the “three-hour rule” if it is unable to provide work for the employee because of storms or similar causes beyond the employer’s control that results in the stopping of work?

Advocacy for Better Advocacy: The Right to Reply Factums in Civil Cases

Should parties on civil appeals be permitted to file “Reply Factums” without seeking leave of the court?

In Prism Resources Inc. v. Detour Gold Corporation, 2022 ONCA 4, Justice David Brown of the Court of Appeal for Ontario expressed his strong preference that they should.

Divisional Court Finds Ottawa City Council Displayed Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Against Councillor Rick Chiarelli with Respect to Complaints to Integrity Commissioner

In the period September to November 2019, six complaints were filed against Ottawa City Councillor Richard Chiarelli with the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Ottawa. The Commissioner investigated and then prepared one report in respect to three of the complaints, which were similar. The Commissioner filed the Report with Ottawa City Council on July 9, 2020. City Council considered the Report on July 15, 2020, accepted its conclusions that Councillor Chiarelli had engaged in acts of misconduct in respect to the three complaints, and imposed the maximum available penalty: suspending Councillor Chiarelli’s salary for 270 days in the aggregate. City Council also adopted a resolution calling upon Councillor Chiarelli to resign from City Council.

Councillor Chiarelli applied to the Ontario Divisional Court for judicial review of the proceedings below. He argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaints, showed bias against him, and denied the Councillor procedural fairness. He argued that City Council exhibited bias against him. He sought various remedies, including orders quashing the findings and sanctions against him and orders prohibiting the respondents from taking further steps against him respecting the complaints.

In its decision released December 22, 2021, Chiarelli v. Ottawa (City of), 2021 ONSC 8256 (CanLII), the Divisional Court (Morawetz C.J.O.S.C.J., D.L. Corbett and Ryan Bell JJ.):

1. Dismissed the application as against the Commissioner, with costs payable by Councillor Chiarelli to the Commissioner fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $40,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days;
2. Granted the application as against the City of Ottawa;
3. Quashed the sanction decision of City Council, with costs payable by the City of Ottawa to Councillor Chiarelli fixed at 50% of partial indemnity costs, in the amount of $20,000, inclusive, payable within ten days of the date on which Councillor Chiarelli pays the $40,000 in costs he owes to the Commissioner; and
4. Imposed a sanction on Councillor Chiarelli of suspension of salary for 270 days in the aggregate.