Eric T. Gresham

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (AFAC), particularly a claim for negligent investigation against the employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion under Rule 26 to further amend the AFAC, including adding claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and defamation with malice.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligent investigation claim, affirming that the tort does not extend to employers conducting internal investigations, even with recent OHSA amendments.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, allowing amendments for intentional infliction of mental distress and certain defamation particulars, and for rephrasing reputation paragraphs, but denied other proposed amendments due to late filing and procedural fairness concerns.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, dated June 10, 2019, pursuant to Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's motion sought orders for the production and preservation of certain documentation related to an alleged harassment complaint.

The court found that the plaintiff's motion was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and therefore dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss it under Rule 2.1.02.

The respondents sought costs following their substantial success on a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for access to personal information.

The self-represented applicant argued he was successful because he was granted leave to amend, and objected to costs being awarded to in-house counsel.

The court found the respondents were substantially successful and awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,000, noting that section 36 of the Solicitors Act permits costs awards for in-house counsel.

The applicant sought comprehensive access to his personal information from his employer, Magna International Inc. and Venest Industries Inc., based on his employment contract and company policies.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the court lacked jurisdiction over matters related to PIPEDA.

The court granted the respondents' motion in part, striking the applicant's broad prayer for relief as not supported by company policies, but granted leave to amend the application to seek more specific disclosure.

The court affirmed it lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising under PIPEDA.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for seeking accommodation and raising health concerns, and that he was harassed and not accommodated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) and the WSIB.

The Tribunal found that the ESO's decision, which concluded the applicant was guilty of wilful misconduct and neglect of duty, appropriately dealt with the termination and reprisal allegations.

Those aspects of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal found the accommodation issues prior to termination were not fully addressed and ordered a summary hearing to determine if they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of racial discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that a co-worker repeatedly made vexatious and sexually explicit comments to the applicant, constituting sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondent's management failed to properly investigate or address the applicant's complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim of reprisal regarding his termination, finding it was due to poor performance.

The respondent was ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to provide human rights training to its staff.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to attend a family wedding out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to make the request within the required 14-day period and that attending a wedding did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a late adjournment.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide witness statements for three additional witnesses by a specified deadline, failing which they may not be permitted to testify.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to call three additional witnesses not previously identified on its witness list.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting there was sufficient time to prepare and deliver witness statements before the hearing resumed, and ordered the issuance of summonses for the witnesses.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when his employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had previously found that the applicant was capable of returning to work without modifications and that his ongoing loss of earnings was due to his refusal to accept work, not his injury.

The Tribunal agreed that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a temporary worker, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability by terminating his placement after he suffered a workplace injury.

The applicant claimed his hours were cut and he was assigned more difficult work upon returning.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's placement was terminated because he walked off the job without permission after being assigned packing duties he disliked.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove his workplace injury was a factor in the respondents' decision to end his placement, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning him of the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no new facts, evidence, or exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness had to travel overseas on short notice due to a family emergency.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, ordering that the hearing proceed as scheduled for the applicant's evidence and the respondents' other witnesses, with the hearing to be adjourned thereafter to a later date when the unavailable witness could testify.

The applicant, a 67-year-old man, applied for a seasonal grounds maintenance position with the respondent golf club.

He was interviewed but not hired.

The applicant alleged age discrimination, primarily because the respondent did not contact him within one day of the interview, which he believed was promised.

The Tribunal found that the applicant misunderstood the timeline and that there was no evidence connecting the failure to hire him, or the timeline of the communication, to his age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The employer terminated him based on WSIB surveillance video that allegedly showed him misrepresenting his workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's related WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the WSIA appeal significantly overlapped, and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and disputed whether the modified duties offered by the employer met his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the suitability of the modified work was a central issue in both proceedings and that the WSIAT proceedings were well underway.

To avoid concurrent overlapping proceedings and the potential for conflicting findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceedings.