Christina E. Hall

The respondent, an assistant manager at Wal-Mart, was constructively dismissed after enduring months of abusive and demeaning treatment from her supervisor.

When she complained to Wal-Mart management, they deemed her complaints unsubstantiated and threatened her with reprisal.

At trial, a jury awarded substantial compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages against both the supervisor and Wal-Mart.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and the compensatory and aggravated damages awards, finding that the supervisor intentionally inflicted mental suffering and Wal-Mart breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

However, the Court significantly reduced the punitive damages awards against both defendants, concluding that the original amounts were not rationally required to achieve the goals of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence in light of the high compensatory awards.

The appellant commenced an action to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the termination of his employment.

He then commenced a second action against his employer and its principal based on the underlying conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Minutes of Settlement and final release governed the parties' relationship and the underlying conduct was no longer relevant.

The appellant, an Evangelical Christian organization operating community living residences, appealed a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against a support worker on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Tribunal had held the organization could not rely on the religious exemption in s. 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code because it served the broader public rather than primarily serving its own religious group.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 24(1)(a) by failing to consider the organization's subjective religious purpose in providing charitable services.

However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the prohibition on same-sex relationships was not a bona fide occupational qualification for a support worker, as the role did not involve religious proselytization.

The Court also upheld the finding of a poisoned work environment but narrowed the systemic remedies ordered by the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a vocational rehabilitation program.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he only became aware of the extent of the discrimination after receiving documents through a Freedom of Information request, which exacerbated his mental health condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish good faith, as he received the documents well within the limitation period and provided no medical evidence to support his illness-based claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondent Ontario March of Dimes brought a request for an order during the proceeding to dismiss the application against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not in a service, contractual, employment, or tenancy relationship with the Ontario March of Dimes, and that the simple act of lodging a complaint did not fall within the social areas outlined in the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as against the Ontario March of Dimes.

The respondent Commission brought a motion to quash a judicial review application filed by the applicants.

The applicants sought to review the Commission's refusal to enter into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Commission's discretion to enter into a settlement is not a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as it does not affect legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

No costs were awarded due to miscommunications between the parties.