Alison M. Adam

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion by the defendant, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendant sought costs of $17,186.76.

The court found that the defendant was completely successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the plaintiff's conduct was misguided but not malicious.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 all-inclusive.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, disability, and association after their full-time artist positions were eliminated during a workplace restructuring.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of discrimination based on age, sex, and association had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicants failed to show a link between the termination of their employment and the protected grounds.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicants failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his work-related injuries.

The Tribunal raised the issue of deferring the application because the applicant had a pending appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the same modified work and medical restrictions.

Finding considerable overlap in the issues and with the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB/WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent assigned him modified work beyond his medical restrictions prior to his last day of work in May 2002.

The applicant argued that the respondent's subsequent refusals to provide employment documents between 2002 and 2009 constituted a series of discriminatory incidents, bringing his 2009 application within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the refusal to provide documents for WSIB proceedings did not constitute further incidents of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that his recent discovery of an ergonomist's report and his ignorance of his rights under the Code constituted good faith reasons for the delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a landed immigrant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his interactions with the respondent while attempting to register for an employment assistance program for internationally trained engineers.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant admitted he had no evidence beyond his own suspicions to support his allegations of nepotism and discrimination.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of mistreatment were accepted, there was no evidence connecting his experience to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in relation to the termination of his employment, almost five years after the last incident of discrimination.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith justification for the delay, noting that his involvement in WSIB proceedings did not prevent him from pursuing a human rights complaint concurrently.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay, particularly since the corporate respondent ceased operations in 2002.

The application was dismissed.