David A. Gourley

The plaintiff brought a motion to resolve numerous undertakings and refusals from the discoveries of the defendants, and to seek leave to extend the time limits for further discoveries.

The court ruled on dozens of specific refusals and undertakings, ordering the defendants to answer the majority of them.

Applying the factors under Rule 31.05.1(2), the court granted the plaintiff an additional 26 hours to discover the defendants, noting the complexity of the case, the financial imbalance between the parties, and the defendants' conduct during initial discoveries.

The court also ordered three of the defendants to reattend at their own expense pursuant to Rule 34.15(1)(a) due to the large volume of improper refusals.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a sixth timetable order to avoid dismissal of her action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The defendants opposed, arguing the action should be dismissed due to the plaintiff's repeated failures to move the litigation forward over ten years.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for delay largely unacceptable but declined to dismiss the action because the defendants maintained a closely linked counterclaim and had also been dilatory.

The court granted the motion, imposing a strict peremptory timetable to ensure the action proceeds to trial.

The applicant alleged that the Toronto Police Services Board discriminated against her based on her mental health disability during a landlord and tenant dispute.

She claimed that because the police assessed her as an Emotionally Disturbed Person (EDP), they gave her calls lower priority, failed to investigate her complaints, and treated her adversely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive delayed service compared to her landlord, that she herself prevented the investigation of her complaint by refusing to cooperate, and that the police acted to de-escalate the situation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal allegation, finding that a police reference to a former communication protocol was due to the high volume of her complaints, not retaliation for filing a human rights application.

The application was dismissed.