Anoushka Zachariah

The plaintiff, a former Senior Financial Services Representative at CIBC, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that the plaintiff repeatedly breached its Code of Conduct and policies, including failing to review overdraft reports, pulling credit bureau records without signed consent, and altering signed mortgage payout statements.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause and found that the plaintiff's cumulative and persistent breaches of the employer's policies, despite previous warnings, struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to quash several summonses issued by the plaintiff to employees and a former employee of Georgian College.

The plaintiff sought to examine these witnesses in advance of her motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a hiring process for an Associate Dean position.

The court quashed the summonses for the non-party witnesses, finding the request to be a fishing expedition that failed to meet the requirements of Rule 39.03.

However, the court permitted the examination of two named defendants, subject to the condition that they could not be examined again for discovery without leave of the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denying her request to reactivate her human rights application.

The request was made 40 days late due to the inadvertence of her counsel.

The Tribunal applied the strict test under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, requiring a good faith explanation and no substantial prejudice, rather than its broader procedural rules.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, as it fettered its discretion by refusing to consider prejudice and misapplied its own jurisprudence.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a different Tribunal member.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to schedule a pre-trial and set the matter down for trial.

The defendant objected, noting the plaintiff had just served an Amended Statement of Claim, which would require an amended defence and potentially further discoveries.

The court declined to schedule the pre-trial, directing the parties to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding amended pleadings and to move the matter forward without relying on judicial supervision unless necessary.