Elizabeth Grace

The defendant Archdiocese moved to strike two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and similar facts regarding the abuser's conduct toward another victim.

The court found that pleading the history of charges and convictions was not pleading evidence, but rather material facts relevant to the institutional defendant's alleged failure to prevent abuse.

The court also held that pleading similar facts did not add undue complexity.

The motion was dismissed, save for a few words in one paragraph that improperly pleaded argument.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability arising from a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the injury occurred more than a year prior to filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged failure to accommodate occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to remove individual respondents and declined to defer the matter, as the applicant was not actively pursuing a related WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, sex, and reprisal against his former university, hospital, and colleagues.

Following a preliminary hearing to determine if the applicant's documentary evidence established a prima facie case, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with procedural directions and submitted an 86-page document filled with argument, speculation, and inadmissible material.

The Tribunal admitted the evidentiary portions but concluded that the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination lacked necessary particulars and were based on unsupported inferences and personal hostility rather than prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a case for the respondents to meet.

The respondents requested an order compelling the self-represented applicant, who resides in Iran, to attend the hearing in person rather than by electronic means.

The respondents argued that in-person cross-examination was necessary for credibility assessments.

The applicant argued that his case relied primarily on documentary evidence and that travel costs and visa limitations posed significant hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, permitting the applicant to present his case-in-chief in writing and appear by teleconference for the initial stage of the hearing, finding no significant prejudice to the respondents at this stage.

The Attorney General for Ontario moved for a stay of an order requiring the production of a videotaped police statement in a civil action, pending an application for leave to appeal.

The videotape was made by the plaintiff regarding sexual assault allegations against a former teacher of the defendant school, and had already been disclosed to the accused in the related criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the Master's jurisdiction or the application of litigation privilege, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the parties in the civil action.