Amy Tibble

The defendants, The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the plaintiff's former lawyers (Mervyn F. White and Carters Professional Corporation), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Halton argued the LTD application was late, the plaintiff's employment was terminated, and the claim was statute-barred.

The former lawyers sought dismissal if the claims against Halton were time-barred.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture for the late LTD application, finding Halton's misleading information and failure to assist contributed to the delay.

It also determined that the termination of employment did not preclude the claim and that the two-year statutory limitation period applied, which had not expired.

Both defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent hospital based on disability, gender identity, and family status.

The respondents filed Requests for Order to strike the applicant's Reply for raising new allegations and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal struck portions of the Reply that improperly raised new allegations regarding subsequent events, directing the applicant to file a formal request to amend his application if he wished to pursue them.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them as they were acting in their management roles and the corporate respondent was fully liable.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, scheduled for September 25 and 26, 2014, due to difficulties obtaining missing medical documents.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments outside the 14-day period are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found the circumstances were not exceptional and directed that any prejudice to the respondent could be addressed by adjourning the hearing after the applicant testified in chief.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly used insulting and profane language towards counsel and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a written undertaking to abide by expectations of appropriate conduct and to comply with a publication ban regarding the respondents' identities.

The applicant failed to provide the undertaking and continued to post identifying and inflammatory materials on the internet.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process and as abandoned due to the applicant's ongoing refusal to comply with its directions.

The respondents requested an order prohibiting the applicant from posting information related to the human rights proceedings on the internet and requiring him to remove existing postings.

The Tribunal held an expedited hearing, which the applicant argued was unlawful due to short notice.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the applicant had actual notice and was not prejudiced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was responsible for internet postings containing inflammatory and irrelevant assertions about the respondents.

To protect the integrity of the process and prevent intimidation, the Tribunal ordered a publication ban on the names of individual respondents and individuals named in the materials.

Due to the applicant's abusive and profane conduct during the hearing, the Tribunal also ordered him to provide a written undertaking to abide by appropriate conduct expectations, failing which the Application may be dismissed as an abuse of process.