Dianne Elizabeth Jozefacki

The plaintiff, Terrence Manuel, brought a claim against Lafarge Canada Inc. for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual harassment.

Manuel was terminated and signed a release.

Lafarge moved for summary judgment to enforce the release and dismiss the claim, while Manuel cross-moved to invalidate the release on grounds of lack of capacity, duress, and unconscionability.

The court granted Lafarge's motion and dismissed Manuel's, finding insufficient admissible evidence to support Manuel's claims of diminished capacity or that the release was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to provide qualified expert medical evidence linking his alleged psychological symptoms to the harassment or demonstrating a lack of capacity.

The plaintiffs, international students, brought a class action against Niagara College alleging misrepresentations regarding the eligibility of its General Arts and Science Program for a three-year Post-Graduation Work Permit.

The parties reached a $3 million settlement.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, approved class counsel fees of $950,750, and awarded a $10,000 honorarium to each representative plaintiff.

The appellant, Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice striking its claim in negligence for pure economic loss against the respondent, The Attorney General of Canada.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that Niagara College did not have a proximate relationship with Immigration Canada, and upheld the decision to strike the negligence claim without leave to amend.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's request for leave to commence an action against the Respondents.

The court assessed the costs payable by the Applicant to the successful Respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the reasonableness of two separate sets of costs, duplication of legal work by multiple lawyers of similar call years, and the hourly rates and disbursements claimed.

The court reduced the costs sought by Centennial College and the individual Respondents due to concerns about duplication and excessive disbursements, while approving the costs sought by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Applicant, a vexatious litigant, was ordered to pay costs, and his approval of the costs order's form and content was waived.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence an action against a college, its employees, the police, and the Attorney General.

The proposed action related to his expulsion from a paralegal program and subsequent arrest for uttering threats.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed pleading was defective, lacked an evidentiary basis, and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to re-litigate a final college decision.

The court noted the applicant's history of bringing meritless proceedings and his failure to pay over $73,000 in outstanding costs orders.