Dismissed (3)

Constitutional/Aboriginal Law: Division of Powers 

Siksika Health Services v. Health Sciences Association of Alberta2019 ABCA 494 (39071)
Health Sciences Association of Alberta applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to be certified as the bargaining agent for ambulance attendants employed with Siksika Emergency Medical Services, a division of Siksika Health Services of Siksika Nation. Certification ballots favoured unionization. Siksika Health Services objected on the ground Siksika Nation had rights to health care services under Treaty No. 7. Siksika Nation asserted it is a federally regulated employer and these labour matters should be dealt with under federal legislation. The Alberta Labour Relations Board held Siksika Emergency Medical Services is a provincial undertaking for purposes of the Labour Relations Code. It certified the Health Sciences Association of Alberta as the bargaining agent for the ambulance attendants. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review. The C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Health Sciences Association of Alberta.”

Employment Law: Termination 

Bouchard v. Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est2019 ONCA 922 (39068)
The Applicant, Mr. Bouchard, held the position of cultural facilitator at École secondaire catholique Garneau for eight years. During that time, progressive formal disciplinary measures were taken against him for insubordination, disrespectful or unacceptable conduct and the secret recording of a meeting with the school administration. The Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre‑Est (“school board”) ultimately dismissed Mr. Bouchard, alleging it had good and sufficient cause. Mr. Bouchard sued the school board for dismissal without cause and Jason Dupuis, the school principal at the time, for inciting breach of contract. He denied the school board’s accusations and claimed he had met all expectations for his role but the school administration, with no expertise in cultural facilitation, had misinterpreted those expectations. The school board maintained Mr. Bouchard had been insubordinate and unprofessional on many occasions and had refused to perform certain important tasks assigned to him in his position. Following a three‑week trial, the trial judge dismissed both actions. The C.A. dismissed Mr. Bouchard’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Family Law: Mobility 

Farsi v. Da Rocha2020 ONCA 92 (39120)
The Applicant (“mother”) and Respondent (“father”) have a child together. The child was born in Canada in 2018 and raised in Toronto with both parents until she was six months old. At that time, the mother, a French citizen, took the child to France. Four months later, in February 2019, the father travelled to France and brought the child back to Toronto. The mother brought an application pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in which she alleged the child was habitually resident in France in February 2019 and had been wrongfully removed to and retained in Canada. The application judge dismissed the mother’s application. She found until the mother took the child to France, the child’s habitual residence was in Canada. The mother had the father’s consent for a two‑week trip to France with the child, not a relocation. The child was then wrongfully retained in France until her return to Canada. When the child returned to Canada, the child’s habitual residence remained in Canada. Because the child was not habitually resident in France in February 2019, the provisions of the Hague Convention did not apply. The C.A. dismissed the mother’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”