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 applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee terminated for sexual harassment and dishonesty during the investigation.

The arbitrator had substituted the dismissal with a 30-day suspension and a condition that any future sexual harassment would result in automatic termination, binding any future arbitrator to only determine if harassment occurred.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that termination was not the only appropriate penalty, as it was based on reasonable factual findings.

However, the Court found the penalty unreasonable because the arbitrator lacked statutory authority under the Labour Relations Act to bind future arbitrators.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine the appropriate penalty.

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.

The applicant, a school custodian, alleged discrimination based on sex, creed, and race regarding workplace conflict, scheduling, religious leave, and school inspections.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal confirmed the union's intervenor status over the applicant's objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the religious leave allegation as having no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the school inspection allegations under section 45.1 of the Code because they had been dealt with in a prior grievance.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to include events outside the one-year limitation period.

The allegations regarding workplace conflict and scheduling were permitted to proceed.

The union filed a grievance regarding the employer's failure to comply with Minutes of Settlement signed in October 2014.

The employer conceded that it breached the settlement by failing to provide the agreed-upon training in human rights, equity, diversity, workplace violence, harassment, and bullying within the twelve-month timeline.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the employer's commitment to training and remained seized of any interpretation issues.

The applicant, who requires a power wheelchair, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing it was barred by a prior settlement and release, and alternatively had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the release did not bar the application because the allegations concerned a conversation that occurred after the release was signed.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the allegations of demeaning treatment based on disability could constitute a Code infringement if proven.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation.

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 student teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after her placement with the respondent school board was terminated abruptly.

The termination followed a confrontation with her supervising teacher regarding a lesson plan and timing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the respondents was one of services, not employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reliable evidence that the applicant's ethnic origin was a factor in her treatment or the termination of her placement, and attributing the issues to the applicant's lateness, failure to communicate absences, and performance concerns.

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.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and recordings from the respondent college.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and ordered the respondent to produce an audio recording of specific voicemail messages, but denied the majority of the production requests on the basis of relevance or because the documents did not exist.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the ground of colour from her application, but deferred her requests to add a ground of sexual harassment and to have her brother assist in her representation to the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant, a 56-year-old female Vice-Principal, alleged that the respondent School Board discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex when she was unsuccessful in a job competition for a Principal position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations primarily pointed to perceived unfairness in the interview and scoring process rather than evidence of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not establish a link between the proposed evidence and the alleged prohibited grounds, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent school board did not hire her for a casual clerical position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish the first two elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, and that evidence regarding the ages of the successful candidates was within the respondent's control.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not clear the application had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and ethnic origin after he was denied a building operator position.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving his claims, as he relied solely on his own subjective beliefs and speculation without any objective evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

While awaiting a decision on a preliminary issue of delay, the applicant commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements to preserve her limitation period.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code is mandatory and prohibits an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to accommodation and services on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and receipt of social assistance, as well as reprisal, following a billing dispute at the respondent hotel.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made bald assertions of discrimination but failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between the respondent's actions and a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.