Chantel Christine Goldsmith

The defendant Brad Brand, Executive Officer of the Special Investigations Unit, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for defamation, slander, and intentional interference with economic relations on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an SIU employee and OPSEU member, argued the dispute was personal rather than workplace-related.

The court found that the essential character of the claim, despite being pleaded as defamation, arose from alleged unfair treatment in the workplace and was therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board under the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant, 3M Canada Company, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The defendant contended that human rights claims fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and that there is no independent common law duty to accommodate.

The plaintiff's claim alleged constructive dismissal due to a poisoned work environment stemming from the defendant's failure to accommodate his disability and discriminatory treatment.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test, reading the statement of claim generously.

It found that the claim, in pith and substance, was for constructive dismissal arising from a breach of the employment contract, not solely an infringement of the Human Rights Code.

The court affirmed that allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate can be relevant to a constructive dismissal claim, distinguishing it from actions based solely on the Code.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.

A young person, C.L., charged with sexual assault, brought an application to stay proceedings due to a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay of 29 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The Crown argued that court staff shortages, which caused significant trial delays and courtroom closures, constituted an "exceptional circumstance" to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that while a period of delay due to the complainant's illness was an exceptional circumstance, the systemic and long-standing issue of staff shortages was not "reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable" and was within the state's control.

As the Crown failed to provide justification or demonstrate meaningful action to rectify the problem, the court concluded that the staff shortages did not qualify as an exceptional circumstance.

Consequently, C.L.'s s. 11(b) Charter rights were violated, and the proceedings were stayed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for unpaid commissions and wrongful dismissal.

The individual plaintiff initially provided services through his corporation as a dependent contractor before becoming a full-time employee.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the corporate plaintiff unpaid commissions and bonuses in USD.

The court also found the individual plaintiff was a dependent contractor whose prior service counted towards his length of employment, awarding him 6 months' pay in lieu of notice, less mitigation.

A claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.

The Crown applied under Section 521 of the Criminal Code to review the respondent's bail release, seeking detention or surety supervision.

The application for detention or surety was denied, but the court found significant procedural errors in the original bail hearing where the Justice of the Peace unduly restricted the Crown's presentation of evidence.

The court emphasized the balance between efficiency and procedural fairness in bail hearings, noting that expedition should not compromise the Crown's right to be heard, especially regarding evidence pertinent to public safety.

The applicant, a seasonal paving worker, alleged he was terminated because of his Turkish ethnic origin and a workplace injury to his finger.

The Tribunal dismissed the ethnic origin claim for lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination, rejecting the employer's assertion that he was laid off due to a shortage of work.

The employer failed to provide credible evidence or documentation supporting the shortage of work claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer's management to undergo human rights training.

A claim for lost wages was denied because medical evidence indicated the applicant was unable to work due to the injury itself.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing for over a year because its counsel was taking a pregnancy and parental leave and the respondent preferred to retain her.

The applicant opposed the lengthy delay, citing prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a key witness, and lost records.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a delay of that length would not be fair, just, or expeditious, and that the respondent could assign another lawyer from the same firm to the file.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by a client of the respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal found that the application should not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as there were factual and legal disputes requiring a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of the client's log books, investigation notes, employment contracts, and workplace policies, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, subject to redactions for privacy.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant's counsel admitted that her office failed to notify the applicant of the hearing date, and the applicant, whose first language is not English, only learned of the hearing on the morning it was scheduled.

The Tribunal allowed the request for reconsideration, finding that it would not be fair and just to penalize the applicant for his counsel's inadvertence, and directed that new hearing dates be scheduled.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a proceeding under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant opposed the deferral, noting her WSIB appeal regarding loss of earnings had already been decided in her favour and further appeals would not overlap with the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that deferral was not appropriate because the respondent provided no submissions in support of its request and the issues in any subsequent WSIB appeals would not overlap with the substance of the application.

The request for deferral was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Despite being given additional time to travel to the hearing after his counsel contacted him, the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient notice and time to attend, and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order requiring the respondent to provide a list of documents it intended to rely upon at the hearing, and an order permitting his family doctor to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 16.2(a) requires parties to identify specific documents to be relied upon to ensure efficient case management.

The Tribunal also noted that medical professionals frequently testify by teleconference in disability discrimination cases, as credibility assessments of such witnesses are rarely required.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness was unavailable to attend the first day due to a graduate program orientation.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, noting that the applicant's evidence would likely consume the first day and the corporate respondent could select another employee to instruct counsel.