Eric P. Polten

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and disability after a professor denied her request for an extension and assigned her failing grades in December 2012.

She pursued internal academic appeals until May 2014 and filed her human rights application in May 2014.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the internal appeal processes were not a series of discriminatory incidents but rather the ongoing effects of the December 2012 decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of an internal appeal process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The moving party law firm brought a motion for directions, seeking payment of its solicitor's accounts from the Estate and the removal of the estate trustee.

The law firm argued it was retained by the Estate or, alternatively, was entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for acting as a 'lawyer of necessity'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Estate had terminated its retainer with the law firm in 2009 and never re-retained it.

The court also held that the law firm lacked standing under Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 50 of the Estates Act because it was not a creditor and had no financial interest in the Estate.

The quantum meruit claim failed as the services were not requested or acquiesced to by the Estate, and there was no basis to remove the estate trustee.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his civil action against his employer, which included a claim for malicious prosecution arising from a traffic charge instigated by the employer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

As the statement of claim attacked a wide array of employer conduct in managing the workplace, the courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and breach of statutory duty against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and its employees.

The trial judge dismissed the action on the basis of statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Professional Engineers Act, finding the respondents acted in good faith.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on good faith or her refusal to extend the time for a jury notice.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in awarding solicitor and client costs, and reduced the costs to a party-and-party basis.

The respondents moved to lift the automatic stay of an $84,000 costs award pending appeal and sought an order for security for costs of the appeal.

The court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding no demonstrable and unusual hardship to the respondents.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious and noting the appellant's insufficient assets.

The appellant was ordered to post $14,400 as security for costs.

The appellant sought to appeal both the dismissal of a civil action and a substantial costs award to the Court of Appeal.

The trial judge had assessed damages at an amount below the Divisional Court monetary threshold while dismissing the action and fixing solicitor and client costs well above $25,000.

The court held that the main appeal lay to the Divisional Court under the Courts of Justice Act, and that the contingent costs appeal had to follow the main appeal rather than create Court of Appeal jurisdiction.

Both appeals were therefore transferred to the Divisional Court, with motion costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing to obey an order to trim his moustache to comply with personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting member would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment prior to formal conviction, thus constituting double jeopardy.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order to trim his moustache to comply with the force's personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In dissenting reasons, one member found that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment before formal conviction and would have allowed the appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed convictions for insubordination arising from three exchanges with a superior officer.

The first charge had been dismissed at trial.

On appeal, the Commission allowed the appeal on the second charge, finding the evidence unclear as to when the disobedience occurred since the superior had acquiesced to the appellant's request for more time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the third charge, finding that the appellant's manner of speaking to his superior, which included profanity and complaints about being put in a difficult position, was insolent, rebellious, and disrespectful.

The appellant police constable appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from an incident during crowd control at a football game.

The presiding officer found that the appellant failed to properly face the crowd as instructed, allowing disorderly individuals onto the field.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the presiding officer's conclusion that the appellant had not lived up to the duty imposed upon him.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of eight days off imposed after he pleaded guilty to a major charge of neglect of duty for being absent from court without reasonable excuse.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and inequitable.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not unduly harsh given the appellant's record of thirteen prior instances of neglect of duty, and that the presiding officer properly considered the cumulative effect of these misdemeanours.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and consuming intoxicating liquor while on duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the officers visited a tavern while on duty, and one officer danced nude on stage.

The appellants argued the convictions should be quashed because the exact date of the offence was not proven.

The Commission held that the failure to prove the exact date was not fatal, as the charges were explicit and the evidence was sufficient.

The Commission also upheld the penalties, finding the conduct destroyed trust and confidence in the officers.

The appeals were dismissed.