Giuseppe Agostino

The plaintiff, a former foreperson for the TTC, claimed he was constructively dismissed after the TTC failed to accommodate his request for an exemption from its mandatory COVID-19 mask policy.

The plaintiff alleged that wearing a mask exacerbated his migraine disorder and caused dyspnea and palpitations.

The court dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no medical evidence linking his migraine disorder to his inability to wear a mask.

The court held that the plaintiff repudiated his employment contract by refusing to comply with an essential condition of his job.

The plaintiff was awarded $2,792 for one week of unpaid sick leave that the TTC had previously agreed to pay.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion against the respondent, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing a disclosure motion based on baseless allegations of misrepresentation under oath, and persisting despite offers to settle on a without-costs basis, was reprehensible.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $37,000.

The moving party brought a motion seeking to compel the responding party to answer discovery questions and produce income tax and bank records, alleging that newly discovered evidence of dividend payments undermined a prior decision sustaining discovery refusals.

The court dismissed the motion on the basis of issue estoppel, finding that the moving party's abandonment of its earlier appeal rendered the prior associate justice's decision final.

The court held that the new evidence of co-defendant dividend payments did not demonstrate that the responding party had received income from co-defendants or had misrepresented facts at discovery.

Costs submissions were reserved.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for human rights damages, which he had initially pursued before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO application was dismissed after the defendant successfully argued that all issues, including human rights allegations, should be heard in the civil action.

The defendant subsequently opposed the amendment in the civil action, citing abuse of process and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding it would be unfair to deny the amendment given the defendant's prior position.

The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but rather sought a different remedy arising from the same factual matrix originally pleaded, thus not being statute-barred.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J., and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal the same order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendant, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, David Moskowitz, did not oppose the amendment but sought costs thrown away from cancelled discoveries as a term of the amendment, and also requested case management and a litigation timetable.

The court granted leave to amend without awarding costs thrown away to the plaintiff, denied the request for case management, but imposed a litigation timetable.

The court found the plaintiff's position on costs disproportionate and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) appealed an Associate Justice's decision regarding refusals motions during discovery in two related actions.

The TTC alleged conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against Ronald Howard Spaeth, Specbilt Enterprises Inc., and Michael Hickey, claiming they manipulated procurement processes and overcharged for parts.

Mr. Hickey also sued TTC for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal concerned the production of financial records, bank records, and documents related to the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group.

The court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Associate Justice erred in principle by overly limiting the scope of relevant documents for production, particularly regarding financial records and supplier transactions, and the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group, but upheld the refusal for general payroll records.

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of documents identifying the source of income reported in the plaintiff's and Analitix Group Inc.'s income tax returns for 2013-2017, including T4s and T4As.

This request arose during discovery in a wrongful termination action where the plaintiff's employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) was a key issue.

The court found the request to be a proper follow-up question and relevant to the pleadings, particularly concerning whether the plaintiff worked exclusively for the defendant.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested documents, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which denied his request to amend his application and dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and colour by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the failure to hire with the applicant's age, race, or colour.

The court also found the Tribunal reasonably denied the request to amend the application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff, dismissed without cause from her Group Station Manager position at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), moved for summary judgment in her wrongful dismissal claim.

She sought damages based on a 12-month notice period, loss of benefits, and pregnancy-related top-ups, as well as aggravated and moral damages for unpaid vacation and breach of confidence regarding her pregnancy.

The TTC argued for a 4-month notice period and disputed other claims.

The plaintiff abandoned her claims for moral and aggravated damages to proceed with the summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial, primarily due to a significant factual dispute regarding the character of the plaintiff's employment (senior vs. mid-level manager) which directly impacted the appropriate notice period and the reasonableness of her mitigation efforts.

The applicant and corporate respondent filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of witness contact information and arguably relevant documents, including medical records, notes, and university files.

Both parties consented to the production requests.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents and information.

The Tribunal denied the parties' requests to expedite or delay the standard disclosure timelines under Rules 16 and 17, finding no compelling reasons to deviate from the rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin.

The applicant also filed a union grievance and a Ministry of Labour claim under the Employment Standards Act based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's opposition due to a lack of confidence in his union, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the concurrent proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and promote adjudicative economy.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its Response to the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that exceptional circumstances justified early production of the medical documents, as privacy legislation otherwise prevented the respondent from accessing its own internal files needed to meaningfully respond.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents refused to accommodate him and allow his return to work.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to respond to the application.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and granted the respondents access to the file, restricting its use to advisors, instructors, and potential witnesses, and extended the time for filing a Response.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal refused to defer the application, noting that the respondent was challenging the timeliness of the grievance, effectively arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also found that the WSIB proceedings involved narrow issues that would not significantly impact the key allegations in the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the ground of disability.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which was granted as per the Tribunal's standard practice.

The applicant also requested an extension of time to file a Reply, which was granted as the respondent identified no prejudice.