Alexandre T. Mouret

The appellant, a university student who had been banned from campus, initiated over 20 separate legal proceedings against the university, student council, and others.

The application judge declared him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed the judgments but failed to identify any errors in the application judge's analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the conclusion that the appellant is a vexatious litigant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered it to return all tenant deposits for garage door fobs to the respondent landlord based on unjust enrichment, and set off that amount against unpaid monthly fees owed to the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in applying unjust enrichment because the tripartite agreement provided a juristic reason for the appellant to retain the deposits.

The court also corrected an error in the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid monthly fees, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the appellant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and other grounds against his former physician, the university where she practiced, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination by the physician occurred when she terminated the doctor-patient relationship more than one year before the application was filed.

As the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, the application against the physician was dismissed.

Consequently, the vicarious liability claims against the university and the systemic discrimination claims against the College were also dismissed, as they depended on a finding of discrimination against the physician.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against a university, a college of physicians, and an individual physician.

The applicant sought to amend the application to add new grounds of discrimination, including race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and sex, and to seek additional public interest remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application without prejudice to the respondents' positions.

The Tribunal also directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be held to address several issues, including whether the application has no reasonable prospect of success, whether it is barred by statutory immunity, whether it is out of time, and whether the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant alleged the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to return his motorized wheelchair within 24 hours of completing a driving assessment.

The respondent argued the 24-hour period did not begin until a written report was finalized.

The Tribunal applied principles of contract interpretation and found the settlement did not require a written report.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the settlement by returning the wheelchair five days late and awarded the applicant $500 in damages.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase her claim for monetary compensation and request additional public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no new grounds or parties were being added and the respondent consented.