Cherrine Chow

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application without prejudice to his right to re-file in the future.

The respondent Durham College objected, arguing that permitting withdrawal without terms would open the door to an abuse of process given the significant expense already incurred.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw without terms, noting that if the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations, the respondents may raise their objections at that time.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her family status, marital status, age, and association with a person identified by these grounds, specifically relating to her need to care for her autistic son.

After the applicant testified at the hearing on the merits, the adjudicator directed submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particularized evidence regarding her attendance issues, childcare needs, or the transfer of work to a younger employee.

Concluding that the applicant's theory of discrimination was based entirely on speculation and conjecture, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex (pregnancy), age, and association, as well as reprisal, after being accused of shoplifting and threatened with a trespass notice by the respondents' representatives.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding no evidence they were linked to claiming rights under the Code.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the discrimination allegations, finding that a full hearing on the merits was necessary to assess the evidence regarding the alleged racial profiling and the respective responsibilities of the store and the security company.

The respondent Lenscrafters brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to set aside previous Interim Decisions that deemed it to have accepted the allegations and waived participation for failing to file a Response.

The respondent argued it had not received the Notices of Application because they were sent to a store location rather than its corporate head office.

The Tribunal accepted this uncontradicted assertion, set aside the Interim Decisions, and directed the respondent to file its Response within 28 days.

The Tribunal also proposed consolidating the two related applications.

The plaintiff employee moved to Ottawa for family reasons and sought to telecommute to his Toronto-based job.

The employer agreed only on the condition that the plaintiff sign a new fixed-term employment contract.

When the contract was not renewed, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the new contract was void for lack of consideration, duress, lack of agreement, and breach of the Employment Standards Act.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and the action, finding the contract was validly formed with consideration and without duress.

While an early termination clause violated the ESA, it was severable, and the fixed-term provision remained valid.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian aftermarket oil and air filter market sought court approval of a settlement resolving the litigation.

The settlement provided for payment of $350,000, subject to an opt-out threshold, with a distribution protocol requiring significant purchase thresholds for direct recovery and a cy-près allocation to a consumer organization for remaining funds.

The court considered the risks of continuing litigation, including evidentiary issues, uncertainty regarding proof of conspiracy and price impact, and the pending Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning indirect purchaser rights.

Concluding that the settlement represented a fair, reasonable, and pragmatic resolution given the litigation risks, the court approved both the settlement and the reduced contingency fee arrangement.

The applicant, a doctoral student with post-concussion syndrome, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability during his comprehensive examination.

Mid-way through the hearing, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had provided all accommodations recommended by the applicant's medical professionals.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence linking his requested accommodations—specifically, changing the exam format to eliminate the written component or removing all deadlines—to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success for either the substantive or procedural duty to accommodate claims and dismissed the application.

Following a motion in a wrongful dismissal action involving a multinational employer, the court had previously stayed the Ontario proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens while finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter.

The defendants sought substantial costs after obtaining the stay.

The court considered the factors under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity and novelty of jurisdictional issues involving cross‑border employment disputes.

Because the plaintiff succeeded on the jurisdiction issue while the defendants succeeded on forum non conveniens, the result of the motion was divided.

Exercising its discretion, the court concluded that fairness required no costs award.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident who was transferred to work in New York for a subsidiary of an Ontario corporation, brought an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found that it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the Ontario parent corporation exercised effective control over the plaintiff's employment and the employment contract was connected to Ontario.

However, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction, finding that New York was the clearly more appropriate forum because the key witnesses, evidence, and factual matters at the core of the dispute were located there.

The action was permanently stayed.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her action.

The application judge found evidence that the plaintiff lacked capacity to instruct counsel to commence the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in principle by failing to consider Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Instead of dismissing the action, it should have been stayed under Rule 15.02 until an application for a litigation guardian could be made.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal set aside, and the action stayed.