Adam Dunlop

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 9, 2015, stating he had only recently contacted the Human Rights Legal Support Centre for representation.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had almost six months since the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to retain counsel and that failure to do so in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to decline jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between the Ontario court and the claim, satisfying the test for jurisdiction simpliciter under both Muscutt and Van Breda.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the forum non conveniens analysis, noting that even if recent Supreme Court jurisprudence attenuated the juridical advantage point, there were sufficient other bases to support the decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

In the course of the proceeding, she brought a motion to seal or redact portions of the record containing her personal medical information, and for an extension of time to perfect her application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for a sealing order, finding that the applicant's personal discomfort did not override the open court principle and that she had impliedly waived confidentiality by initiating the review process.

The court granted the extension of time to perfect the application.