Gary Wiseman

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, claiming she was terminated after informing the respondent of her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act complaint regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Following settlement of the main action concerning a defective retaining wall, the defendants sought indemnity from a third‑party contractor for costs they were required to pay the plaintiffs.

The court had previously found the contractor liable for defective construction and awarded damages and substantial indemnity costs to the defendants in the third‑party trial.

The remaining issue was what portion of the plaintiffs’ settlement costs should be borne by the contractor under the contractual indemnity clause.

The court held that although the defendants failed to mitigate some damages and not all claims were attributable to the contractor, the contractor’s refusal to accept responsibility and failure to meaningfully participate in settlement significantly increased litigation costs.

Balancing those factors, the contractor was ordered to reimburse 75% of the plaintiffs’ costs paid by the defendants.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his application for judicial review of a family arbitration award.

He argued that recent amendments to the Family Law Act meant family arbitrators exercise a statutory power of decision, giving the court jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that family arbitrators derive their authority from private consensual agreements, not statute, and therefore do not exercise a statutory power of decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after her seasonal employment at a summer camp was not renewed.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed due to delay, as it was filed more than a year after the alleged discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant reasonably discovered the alleged breach well before the one-year limitation period expired and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for being filed out of time without establishing the good faith necessary to extend the limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and age after being terminated for refusing to work evenings and Saturdays for religious reasons.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code, finding that the civil action did not seek remedies for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the two proceedings dealt with different legal theories and the civil action was not close to resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and also raised the issue of delay.

Additionally, the respondent objected to the applicant's reliance on documents disclosed in a civil action commenced by her brother.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the Registrar to schedule an oral hearing to determine these preliminary issues.