Alycia Gwynneth Jane Shaw

The plaintiff, Consolidated Fastfrate Inc., moved for summary judgment against the defendants (2516295 Ontario Ltd., Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd., and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc.) for outstanding principal and interest under a credit agreement.

The court found all three defendants liable, with Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd./2516295 Ontario Ltd. bound by the credit agreement's 26.82% annual interest rate, and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc. bound by the 18% annual interest rate stated on invoices.

The defendants' arguments regarding force majeure, frustration, and impossibility due to the COVID-19 pandemic were rejected.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, including interest on unpaid amounts and accrued interest, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought motions to amend the statement of claim to add her minor children as anonymous plaintiffs with herself as litigation guardian, and to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence.

The defendants opposed her appointment as litigation guardian, alleging a potential conflict of interest, and opposed striking the pleadings.

The court appointed the plaintiff as litigation guardian, finding no evidence of a conflict.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the statement of defence that pleaded evidence or irrelevant post-incident facts, while allowing paragraphs relevant to the police investigation to remain.

The appellant, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union (International), appealed the dismissal of a motion to strike an action brought by four rank-and-file members of the International's Toronto-based affiliate, Local 113.

The members sought a declaration that certain provisions of the International's Constitution were void for unconscionability, arguing these provisions prevented disaffiliation.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to strike but granted a temporary stay pending exhaustion of the International's constitutional amendment process.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the dismissal of the motion to strike and the temporary stay, finding the action presented arguable issues of unconscionability and that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter.

The applicant municipality brought an application to set aside a land transfer from the respondent McRobert to the respondent Lievre, alleging it violated s. 50 of the Planning Act because no severance was obtained.

The municipality moved for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against McRobert's remaining lands.

McRobert argued a CPL was unavailable because the municipality claimed no direct interest in the land.

The court held that a CPL may issue because the underlying application puts the extent of the title to the lands in question.

Applying the factors for equitable discretion, the court granted leave to issue the CPL to preserve the status quo pending the application's resolution.

The applicant, Myriam Michail, sought leave from the Superior Court of Justice to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitration award and an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, along with a constitutional challenge.

Ordinarily, such applications are heard by the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued urgency due to protracted proceedings, health issues, inability to travel, and lack of income.

The court, while acknowledging the applicant's subjective distress, found that the objective criteria for urgency and a likely failure of justice under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act were not met.

The court emphasized the complexity of the issues, the need for a three-justice panel (Divisional Court's expertise), and the availability of alternative arrangements like video conferencing.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and the judicial review application was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment during her probationary period.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking her termination to a prohibited ground, relying only on her perception of discrimination.

The reprisal allegation was also found to be too vague.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary educational assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after her employment was terminated.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to significant performance issues, including a failure to properly supervise students and follow the principle of 'guiding hands'.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had bona fide performance-related concerns and that there was no evidence to suggest the applicant's race or colour was a factor in her treatment or termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to take place by teleconference.

Neither the applicant nor her representative attended the hearing or provided an explanation for their absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional details about her relationship with the personal respondent and to add an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents objected on the basis that the applicant failed to file a separate schedule of proposed amendments as previously directed.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were reasonably clear from the request and that there was no prejudice to the respondents, who were permitted to file an amended response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her former employer failed to accommodate her disability and discriminatorily terminated her employment.

Prior to this application, the applicant's union had grieved her termination, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the dismissal was for just cause and that the employer had accommodated her to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent relitigation.

The applicants, two paramedics, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal against their employer and several individuals.

The allegations stemmed from requests for cotton uniforms in 2008 and 2010, a denial of a shower request after experiencing heat-related illness, and various alleged reprisals by their supervisor and others.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2008 uniform allegations for delay, finding no good faith explanation.

The 2010 uniform allegations were dismissed as the employer's request for medical information was reasonable.

The shower denial allegation was dismissed because the temporary heat-related illness did not constitute a disability under the Code.

Finally, the reprisal allegations were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, given the pre-existing fractious relationship with the supervisor and the lack of a link to the assertion of Code rights.

The applicant brought a human rights application against the respondents.

Following the first day of hearing, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the mutual production of documents.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment insurance records, income documents, and evidence of mitigation efforts.

The personal respondent was ordered to produce notes and records relating to the applicant's employment.