Christopher Eric Burkett

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its counsel had erroneously released the hearing dates and was scheduled to be the primary caregiver for his newborn baby.

The applicant opposed the request, noting his own prior adjournment request had been denied.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without counsel for the respondent would violate principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued, citing a lack of preparation and difficulty accessing witnesses.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a lack of preparation does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

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.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant's request for production of file notes from the university's Office of Human Rights and Equity Services and to compel its staff to testify was denied, as the information was not relevant to the core issue of discrimination upon return to work.

The applicant was directed to provide consent for the release of medical information from her summonsed medical witnesses.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's refusal to recuse himself from a police disciplinary hearing.

The Commissioner alleged the adjudicator's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the adjudicator should have been named as a respondent and the Commissioner lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the adjudicator's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias and the procedural issues raised in the cross-appeal were without merit.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for judicial review of a Commission Panel's decision to exclude a statement made by the respondent licensee during an investigation into illegal drug use in horse racing.

The Panel had excluded the statement on the basis that the investigator wilfully deceived the respondent about his regulatory peril.

The Divisional Court found the Panel's decision unreasonable, as there was no evidentiary basis for the finding of wilful deceit, and quashed the decision, remitting the matter to the Commission for determination on the merits.