Donald Gordon Kidd

Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 161 and John Curtis Redmond each brought applications concerning alleged breaches of condominium rules and common element maintenance issues, specifically regarding surface drainage and grading.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement, resolving all substantive disputes but reserving the question of costs for judicial determination.

The court declined to award costs to either party, emphasizing that where parties settle all substantive issues without judicial adjudication, the court should be reluctant to conduct a "paper trial" on the merits solely for the purpose of determining costs.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination and attach two documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, agreeing with the respondent that the amendment was unnecessary because discrimination was already alleged in the original application.

The Tribunal noted that the attached documents could be disclosed and filed in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to summarily dismiss the human rights application.

They argued that the Islamic Society of Guelph is a special interest group exempt from the Human Rights Code under section 18, and that it is not a vocational association as alleged by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the section 18 exemption requires a full evidentiary record to determine if the organization's activities are fundamentally religious.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant could amend the application to allege discrimination in services rather than vocational association membership.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture of elected municipal office after failing to file an audited campaign financial statement as required by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The failure arose from an accounting error that caused the applicant to mistakenly believe an audit was not required.

The court considered its equitable jurisdiction under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and applied the relief-from-forfeiture test focusing on the applicant’s conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the proportionality between the breach and the forfeiture.

The court found the breach technical and inadvertent, that the applicant acted in good faith, and that no prejudice resulted.

Relief from forfeiture was granted, allowing the applicant to retain the elected office.

Following a successful motion fixing the statutory construction lien holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to lien claimants.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs based on a late offer to settle and alleged litigation conduct by the opposing mortgagee representative.

The court held that the offer did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it was served fewer than seven days before the hearing, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying costs beyond the usual partial indemnity scale.

Costs were therefore awarded primarily to the two counsel who carried the motion on behalf of all lien claimants, with modest costs granted to several additional claimants who attended but did not argue the motion.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.

The plaintiffs, former employees of GMA Cover Corp., were summarily terminated without notice or compensation following a complex corporate reorganization.

They brought an action claiming the various corporate defendants were common employers and moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale or encumbrance of the defendants' only remaining asset in Ontario, a property in Guelph.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case on the merits of the common employer claim and satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction, inferring an intent by the defendants to frustrate the plaintiffs' claims.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, or facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite having received notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for non-attendance.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully sought to strike an affidavit sworn by a lawyer from the plaintiffs’ law firm, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable.

Although the defendants succeeded on grounds different from their primary argument, the court found they were nevertheless the successful party.

The court assessed reasonable preparation and attendance time for counsel and limited clerk time on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were calculated using hourly rates for counsel and clerk time and applicable tax.

The moving parties brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action and requested that the responding parties’ affidavit evidence sworn by a law partner of counsel be struck.

The court considered whether it was proper for counsel to rely on an affidavit sworn by a partner in the same firm who had previously acted as lawyer of record.

Reviewing prior jurisprudence and professional conduct rules, the court held that certain portions of the affidavit contained improper hearsay, legal argument, and evidence that should have come from the client or documentary exhibits.

The court struck the improper portions and ultimately struck the affidavit in its entirety while granting leave to file new responding material.

The motion for summary judgment was not determined on the merits at this stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondents required him to sign consent forms before conducting an independent psychological assessment requested by his insurer.

The applicant claimed he had a memory disability and requested to review the assessment report before signing the forms, which the respondents refused.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the requirement to sign the consent forms was not discriminatory and did not preclude the applicant from seeking accommodation from his insurer.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing and asked the Tribunal to appoint a representative from the Ontario Human Rights Commission as an accommodation for a communication disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not appoint representatives and that the applicant had demonstrated the ability to communicate effectively in writing.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested a change of venue and an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing a depressive episode, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the suspension of his driver's license.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, noting the cost of delays and questioning the medical basis.

The Tribunal reviewed the history of the proceeding, noted inconsistencies in the applicant's accommodation requests, and determined that the applicant's limitations could be adequately accommodated by proceeding with the summary hearing via conference call as initially scheduled, with the opportunity to provide written submissions in advance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing, citing a suspended driver's license and a resulting depressive episode that prevented his attendance and participation.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the availability of alternative transportation and the lack of medical documentation supporting the applicant's claims.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, ordering that the hearing proceed as scheduled unless the applicant provides medical documentation substantiating his inability to travel as a passenger and participate in the hearing.

The applicant, a former car sales representative, alleged that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against by her manager on the basis of sex, marital status, and association, and that she was subjected to reprisal after complaining.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was unsupported by other witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's actions, including setting sales targets, were a legitimate response to the applicant's poor sales performance and were untainted by discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order continuing an interim Mareva injunction to trial.

The motions judge had applied the doctrine of abuse of process, finding no new evidence was presented since the initial interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4), despite the motions judge's lack of detailed analysis.

The applicant, a veterinarian, brought a motion for an order summarily allowing his appeal and setting aside a ruling that fined him for incorrectly labeling diazepam with a 36-hour withdrawal time.

The applicant argued that a previous Commission decision involving another veterinarian had already determined the issue.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for hearing existed because the horse in this case was concurrently taking omeprazole, which could affect the clearance time, and because new information regarding clearance times may have become available since the previous decision.

The applicants, parents of children at Arthur District High School, sought judicial review of the Upper Grand District School Board's decision to close the school.

They argued the Board failed to comply with statutory duties and its own accommodation review policy, thereby denying the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had considered numerous alternatives, provided necessary information, and afforded the community a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation process.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, that it represented employees of the responding party, Borden Cold Storage Limited, following the sale of a warehouse facility by J. M. Schneider Inc. The union argued that the transaction constituted a sale of part of a business, thereby transferring bargaining rights.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a sale of idle assets, specifically an empty and derelict warehouse, rather than the transfer of a functional economic vehicle or operational entity.

The purchaser created a new third-party commercial enterprise from the ground up.

Consequently, the Board concluded there was no sale of a business within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.