Anthony Shawn Carlistus Richard

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, appealed an order striking her statement of claim without leave to amend, which had been granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision.

The Court found no reviewable error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's claims for constructive discrimination, harassment, professional negligence, and defamation failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, noting that the appellant had already had an opportunity to amend her pleadings, which resulted in unfocused allegations without evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a restraining order, and a parenting order.

The parties separated after an eight-year relationship, and the mother alleged a history of family violence and erratic behaviour by the father.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the rental home, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain stability.

The court dismissed the request for a restraining order as premature but granted a no-contact order requiring communication through a co-parenting app.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered, and the parties were directed to attend parenting mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his landlord, Ecuhome Corporation, alleging discrimination.

He subsequently filed applications with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

At the LTB hearing, the applicant undertook to withdraw his human rights complaint in order for the LTB to assume jurisdiction over his applications and resolve a preliminary objection regarding duplicative proceedings.

The applicant later resiled from this undertaking without notifying the LTB and sought to proceed with his human rights application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant had an obligation to inform the LTB that he was resiling from his undertaking.