3 total
Appeal allowed in part to require a judge's presence during the pre-trial examination of a hostile witness.
The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to examine a hostile, out-of-jurisdiction witness before trial pursuant to Rule 36.01(2).
The motions judge had ordered the examination to be videotaped but denied further conditions.
The Divisional Court agreed the examination was warranted but allowed the appeal in part, ordering that a judge be present during the examination to resolve anticipated objections and privilege issues given the witness's hostility.
Application dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Code due to ongoing civil proceeding.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and family status regarding the termination of her employment.
She subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringement.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking Code remedies has been commenced and not finally determined.
The Tribunal found that section 34(11) applied because the facts and issues in the court action were the same as those in the application.
The application was dismissed.
Order to Pay rescinded and funds disbursed following a memorandum of settlement between the parties.
The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.
During the hearing, the parties reached a memorandum of settlement to dispose of all matters in dispute.
The Board ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed to the employee and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and rescinded the Order to Pay.
