6 total
Court refused to appoint an expert to assist a party's case.
The self-represented plaintiff moved for relief under Rule 52.03 seeking court assistance in obtaining a forensic psychiatric second opinion responding to the defendant's psychiatric report, and also sought a further adjournment.
The court held that Rule 52.03 concerns court-appointed experts who assist the court, not experts retained to support one party's litigation position.
The plaintiff had long been entitled to obtain her own responding expert and had delayed the action after it had been set down for trial.
The evidentiary record did not establish that a court-appointed expert was necessary, and the motion was dismissed.
Request to amend human rights application to add a claim for monetary compensation granted.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability for the respondent's failure to provide ASL interpretation at a conference.
The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Amend the Application to include a request for monetary compensation.
The respondent opposed the request, arguing it raised new allegations.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the applicant was merely seeking compensation for the discrimination alleged in the original application, without adding new factual allegations.
Tribunal denies early dismissal requests but cautions self-represented applicant against using inappropriate language and personal attacks.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, and reprisal in the workplace.
The respondents filed Requests for Order During Proceeding seeking early dismissal of the application on various grounds, including no reasonable prospect of success and abuse of process due to the applicant's use of inappropriate language and personal attacks.
The Tribunal denied the requests to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success without reasons, and denied the abuse of process request as premature, while strongly cautioning the self-represented applicant to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding courteous and respectful conduct.
Other requests were deferred pending mediation.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing and filing a witness statement in response to a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Application alleging discrimination for denial of sick pay dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically regarding the denial of sick pay benefits.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it did not raise an issue within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that a determination of ineligibility for disability benefits is not, in and of itself, an act of discrimination under the Code.
The application was dismissed.
Co-defendants may obtain separate defence medical examinations where fairness requires.
Two related actions arising from a motor vehicle accident involved disputes over defence medical examinations.
In the tort action, the defendant’s insurer sought a psychiatric defence medical examination, while in the separate action against the plaintiff’s own insurer the plaintiff sought an order that the same examination would serve both defendants.
The court held that the insurers were adverse in interest because each could attribute the plaintiff’s ongoing psychological condition to the other’s conduct, particularly in light of allegations that the insurer’s handling of accident benefits exacerbated the plaintiff’s injuries.
The court further held that adversity between co‑defendants is not a necessary precondition to separate defence medical examinations; the governing consideration is fairness in the adversarial process.
The third party insurer was permitted to conduct the psychiatric examination and the plaintiff’s motion to bind the other insurer to that examination was dismissed.
