André Champagne

The plaintiff sought leave to make further submissions on whether he was required to pay the standard 13% HST on a costs award or only the net HST the defendant would pay after receiving credits under the Excise Tax Act.

The court held that it was functus officio, as the original costs decision was final and the issue of HST credits was a new issue, not a clerical error or accidental omission.

The fact that the order had not yet been entered did not permit the court to vary its decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $1.8 million claim regarding pension benefits, the successful defendant sought costs of over $900,000.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and that the defendant's joint offer to settle did not trigger substantial indemnity costs because the co-defendant had settled via a Pierringer Agreement.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted but awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and the plaintiff's evasive conduct during discoveries.

The plaintiff, a former Vice President of Human Resources, sued his former employer for breach of a verbal contract and negligent misrepresentation regarding his pension benefits.

He alleged the employer's former president verbally agreed to pay all costs to transfer his previous pensionable service to the employer's Supplementary Pension Plan, or alternatively, to set up a fund to cover the difference.

He also claimed he relied on an erroneous pension estimate provided by a subordinate when deciding to retire.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged verbal agreement and that it was unreasonable for him, given his expertise and knowledge of the pension plan's restrictions, to rely on the subordinate's inaccurate estimate.

La Cité collégiale (l'applicant) a présenté une motion pour contraindre le Régime de retraite des collèges d’arts appliqués et de technologie (le respondent) à répondre à des questions refusées ou prises en délibéré lors de l'interrogatoire préalable d'Evan Howard.

La Cité alléguait que M. Brousseau, un ancien employé, avait subi une perte financière due à un écart entre sa rente mensuelle projetée et réelle, et que le CAAT avait un devoir de diligence et fiduciaire.

Le tribunal a examiné la pertinence des questions en vertu de la Règle 31.06 des Règles de procédure civile et du principe de proportionnalité.

Certaines questions ont été jugées non pertinentes (liées au travail antérieur de M. Howard comme avocat, ou demandant une opinion d'expert), tandis que d'autres ont été jugées pertinentes pour établir les connaissances du CAAT en matière de pension, ses communications avec les collèges et les membres, et les changements apportés à ses informations depuis 2012.

Le tribunal a ordonné que les réponses aux questions pertinentes soient fournies par écrit dans les 45 jours.

Dans cette motion interlocutoire, la partie requérante demandait principalement la radiation de la déclaration en raison d’un manquement à un engagement de conserver des courriels produits lors de l’enquête préalable, ou subsidiairement des ordonnances de préservation documentaire.

Le tribunal a conclu que le manquement résultait vraisemblablement de l’inattention ou de l’inadvertance plutôt que d’une inconduite intentionnelle, et a refusé la réparation draconienne sollicitée.

Compte tenu de la complexité de l’action relative à un déficit allégué dans un régime de retraite et de l’étendue temporelle des faits, le tribunal a néanmoins ordonné la conservation et la communication aux fins d’examen de comptes courriel pertinents et a prolongé l’enquête préalable à un total de vingt‑quatre heures.

Le succès ayant été mitigé, le tribunal s’est dit fortement enclin à n’adjuger aucuns dépens.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union, acting as the applicant's bargaining agent, sought intervenor status, which was granted on consent.

The union and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of four outstanding grievances related to the same facts and human rights issues.

Over the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that it is generally appropriate to defer when a parallel grievance process is underway to avoid concurrent proceedings and contradictory decisions.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, filed human rights applications against the university and hospital alleging discrimination after he was suspended from his neurosurgery residency program.

The respondents sought to dismiss the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing the matters were resolved through settlement agreements reached during a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreements contained ongoing contingencies and the arbitrator remained seized of the matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the human rights applications pending the final conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision imposing a first collective agreement under the Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The employer argued the board exceeded its jurisdiction by implicitly treating it and a related hospital as a single employer, and that the wage and benefit increases were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board merely used the hospital as a comparator for wages and benefits, which was within its jurisdiction.

The court also held that the board's decision on wages and benefits was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes and confirming notice was provided, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Her union had previously filed a grievance regarding the same underlying facts but withdrew it at mediation without the applicant's consent.

The union sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing the application against it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance mediation appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the union.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the application against the employer, holding that the union's withdrawal of the grievance over the applicant's express objections did not constitute a settlement that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights complaint.

Le requérant a déposé une requête alléguant du harcèlement au travail fondé sur l'orientation sexuelle et des représailles.

Dans cette décision provisoire, le Tribunal a examiné plusieurs demandes préliminaires des deux parties.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de traitement expéditif, la demande d'enquête du Tribunal, la demande de provision pour frais, ainsi que diverses demandes de mesures de réparation provisoires du requérant.

Le Tribunal a également rejeté la demande de l'intimé visant à reporter ou suspendre l'instance.

The applicant, a contractual employee at a community college bookstore for over three years, complained that the union breached its duty of fair representation and the employer committed unfair labour practices.

The Board found that the applicant was a statutory member of the bargaining unit based on her hours and duties.

The union breached its duty by arbitrarily assuming she had no rights and failing to investigate her status.

The employer breached the Act by keeping her on contractual status to avoid bargaining unit inclusion and by not renewing her contract after she sought union assistance.

The Minister referred a question to the Board regarding whether Maison Mere des Soeurs de la Charite d'Ottawa is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The applicant union argued that the institution's infirmary, which cares for aging nuns, qualifies it as a hospital.

The responding party argued it is the headquarters of a religious order and a private residence for its members, not an institution operated for the care of the aged.

The Board advised that the institution is not a hospital or home for the aged within the meaning of the Act, as its primary purpose is to house members of the religious order and serve as a base for their work, rather than to operate as a care facility.