Craig Robin Colraine

The applicant, an Educational Manager, took medical leave after being diagnosed with advanced cervical cancer.

Upon her return, she commenced a gradual work-hardening program.

After five months of part-time work with increasing hours, the respondent employer presented her with options that would either terminate her employment immediately or place her on a one-year part-time contract ending in termination, arguing that her inability to work full-time caused undue hardship.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship, as it improperly restricted its assessment of resources to a single department rather than the entire institution, and prematurely concluded she could not return to full-time work.

The Tribunal awarded $113,300 for lost wages and $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a pharmacist, alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, and disability, as well as reprisal by his employer.

He claimed he was denied holiday pay, deprived of workplace resources, subjected to unwarranted performance management, and terminated because he is from Pakistan and due to workplace stress.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and there was no evidence to support any of the allegations.

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the performance issues were legitimate and documented, and that the termination was not discriminatory.

The respondent brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that preference shares were improperly released from escrow based on the cash flow of the parent company rather than its subsidiary.

An application judge found the escrow agreement ambiguous and ordered a trial of the issue.

The trial judge subsequently found the agreement clear and unambiguous, concluding the release was improper and constituted oppression.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was bound by the application judge's finding of ambiguity due to issue estoppel.

Interpreting the ambiguous agreement in its factual context, the Court concluded the cash flow reference applied to the parent company.

The release of shares was therefore proper, and the appeal was allowed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding their conduct oppressive under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act and ordering the cancellation of certain shares.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a performance escrow agreement and whether 'cash flow' referred to the parent company or its subsidiary.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding the agreement unambiguous, as an unappealed interlocutory order had already determined it was ambiguous.

Interpreting the agreement in its factual context, the Court concluded 'cash flow' referred to the parent company, meaning the shares were properly released from escrow.

The appeal was allowed and the oppression application dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after transferring her complaint from the Commission.

She also commenced a civil action claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination based on the same factual circumstances, but deliberately omitted the reprisal claim from the civil action.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for an alleged infringement of the Code arising out of the same factual context.

The application was dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The applicant applied for an additional licensed area for an outdoor patio with a capacity of 48 persons.

Local residents and the condominium corporation objected to the application, citing significant noise issues from the existing indoor premises and concerns that a patio would exacerbate the problem.

The Board heard evidence from acoustic experts for both sides and reviewed the history of noise mitigation efforts by the applicant.

The Board found that the objectors did not meet their onus to demonstrate that issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The application was approved subject to strict conditions, including no music on the patio, mandatory security personnel, and restricted hours for the sale and service of alcohol.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for constructive dismissal to the respondent employee and dismissing the employer's counterclaim.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's numerous interjections and premature comments on the merits of the case prevented a fair presentation of its defence and counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicants, franchisees of the respondent debtor company, sought leave to appeal an order sanctioning a Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging that they had over-contributed to the national advertising fund compared to other franchisees, giving them a claim for unjust enrichment that they were unaware of during the claims process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement for admission, as the differential treatment had been disclosed in the debtor's materials.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to meet the stringent test for granting leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings, as they offered no alternative plan and there was no evidence the sanctioned plan was unfair or unreasonable.

The applicant filed a complaint under s. 91(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging the responding party failed to comply with a written settlement agreement resolving an earlier unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party argued the settlement was void due to the applicant's failure to disclose that another employee intended to file a similar complaint, and alleged issues with union membership evidence.

The Board held that the applicant had no duty to disclose the other employee's intentions and that the settlement terms were clear and binding.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the settlement and pay the agreed funds, but declined to award interest due to the applicant's delay in bringing the enforcement application.