David A. Gourlay

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order that communications between the applicant and its counsel be in writing, except during hearings or other Tribunal proceedings.

The applicant and the individual respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the order on consent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was out of the country attending to his father, who had suffered a massive heart attack.

The respondents did not oppose the request but noted the applicant had failed to file required documents.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the family medical emergency constituted exceptional circumstances, and directed the applicant to file his documents by a new deadline.

During a hearing, the respondents brought a motion to dismiss the portion of the application relating to a January 2009 assault and the subsequent police investigation.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to the applicant's race or ethnic origin.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application, as well as the reprisal allegations, for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The hearing was scheduled to continue regarding a separate interaction with a specific police officer.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of Somali origin, alleged that a parking enforcement officer targeted him and his patrons by issuing parking tickets and making racist comments.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because many of the allegations related to events that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the period from 2002 to 2005, finding they were not part of a series of incidents with the later events and that there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to hear evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comments made in 2009 and 2010.

After dismissing a municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a procurement dispute, the court addressed the successful plaintiff’s claim for costs.

The plaintiff sought approximately $50,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued that $20,000–$25,000 would be reasonable.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Appeal’s guidance that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party, the court reduced several components of the claim.

Reductions were made for the junior counsel’s billing rate, duplication between counsel, and unnecessary expert evidence.

The court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant.

The respondents requested the dismissal of parts of a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police as untimely, and sought an order for the production of a document.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were discrete incidents not forming a series with the timely ones, and the applicant's explanation for the delay did not establish good faith.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce any relevant Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding one of the timely incidents.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a procurement dispute arising from a waste haulage contract tender.

The plaintiff carrier alleged its bid was wrongly rejected as non‑compliant despite literal compliance with the tender terms and sought damages for lost profits.

The court held the motion record was inadequate and contained unresolved evidentiary conflicts regarding the interpretation of tender documents, the purpose of amendments to the request for quotation, and the municipality’s handling of clarification opportunities.

The court found that the summary judgment process would not provide a fair and just determination of the dispute.

A full trial was required in the interests of justice.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss allegations concerning an incident on May 6, 2009, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not file a response or provide an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the allegations relating to the May 6, 2009 incident.

The balance of the application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on various grounds.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 35 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and harassment by police officers.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation framed the issues narrowly and did not consider human rights principles or allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police officers who allegedly dismissed her reports of tampering based on a perception that she had a mental illness.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the prior police investigation and subsequent review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent brought a Small Claims Court action alleging he should not have been charged with various parking offences under the Highway Traffic Act, though he did not seek to set aside the convictions.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, but the Divisional Court set aside that order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the Small Claims Court decision, holding that challenging the factual basis underlying convictions without directly seeking to set them aside constitutes an abuse of process and impermissible relitigation.