Christian Frédéric Marc Paquette

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the defendant's former head of Human Resources.

The plaintiff alleged he was dismissed after complaining about harassment by his manager, and sought to question the non-party about similar complaints made by other employees.

The non-party was willing to testify but was bound by a non-disclosure agreement that the defendant refused to waive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-party had relevant information that the plaintiff could not obtain from the defendant, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to trial without this discovery.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination based on creed, specifically regarding a refusal of time off for Ramadan.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the allegation timely and that it would not substantially lengthen the hearing.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated after unsatisfactory performance evaluations, sought judicial review of several decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO had dismissed his numerous complaints against his former employer, his union, various legal counsel, and several administrative bodies, finding no evidence of discrimination based on race or colour.

The HRTO also declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the HRTO's decisions, noting that the applicant failed to establish any link between his dismissal or the subsequent administrative decisions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant brought three procedural motions within his application for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

First, he sought to strike the respondents' materials for late filing; the court dismissed this, allowing the materials nunc pro tunc as the delay was minimal and caused no prejudice.

Second, he argued the Tribunal's record of proceedings was incomplete; the court agreed and ordered the Tribunal to allow the applicant to select correspondence for a supplementary record, awarding him $150 in costs.

Third, he sought to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest; the court dismissed this as the Tribunal had already decided the issue.

The applicant, a condominium occupant, alleged discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race and/or sex.

She claimed that the condominium corporation and individual respondents failed to address her complaints regarding debris, noise, and vandalism, and that sub-standard materials were used to repair her balcony.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged differential treatment to her race or sex, relying instead on bald assertions and speculation.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and other grounds against her former employer, individual respondents, and her union.

The allegations against the employer were previously dismissed as having been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

At a preliminary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal found that the applicant could not provide any evidence linking the individual respondents' or the union's conduct to her disability.

The applications were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

La requérante, une enseignante, a déposé une requête alléguant de la discrimination en matière d'emploi fondée sur le lieu d'origine, la croyance, l'âge et des représailles.

Le Tribunal a tenu une audience sommaire pour déterminer si la requête avait une chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la requérante n'avait présenté aucune preuve permettant d'établir un lien entre les actions des intimés et les motifs de discrimination invoqués.

La requête a été rejetée dans son intégralité.

The applicant, a long-term occasional teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin.

He claimed he was unfairly assigned courses he was not qualified to teach, denied support, and ultimately terminated during his probationary period because he is a visible minority from Africa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differently from other teachers hired at the same time and that his termination was due to his inability to manage his classroom, not discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after signing a release at the time of termination.

The employer relied on the signed release to bar the claim.

The court applied the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc. and held that the release was unenforceable due to a grossly improvident settlement, lack of independent legal advice, a significant imbalance of bargaining power at termination, and the employer’s conduct in presenting the release in a misleading and presumptive manner.

After setting aside the release, the court assessed reasonable notice under the Bardal factors.

Considering the employee’s nearly twenty years of service, age, and limited employment prospects, the court fixed reasonable notice at twelve months.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant withdrew his claim regarding unpaid wages for a religious holiday but maintained his harassment allegations.

The Tribunal held that while some of the applicant's allegations appeared to relate to general management practices rather than Code-protected grounds, it could not conclude at this preliminary stage that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondents to file a response.

The applicant, a former teacher, filed multiple human rights applications against his former employer, his union, the union's legal counsel, his own legal counsel, and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the employer because they were filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining applications against the union, the legal counsel, and the College of Teachers, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the employer's request for an order requiring the applicant to return confidential documents, noting it lacked general injunctive powers.

The applicants, members of the Raelian Church of Canada, alleged that the respondent school board terminated their service contracts because of their creed.

The parties consented to mediation-arbitration and asked the Tribunal to determine the issue of discrimination based on written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicants by terminating their service contracts because of their creed, contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding remedies.