G. Philipupillai

The self-represented plaintiff, citing a disability, requested several accommodations to proceed with her action, including the recusal of the case management judge, the appointment of an out-of-province judge, and state-funded legal counsel.

The defendants argued these requests were substantive remedies requiring a formal motion.

The case management judge agreed, finding that the requested accommodations could not be granted informally and directed the plaintiff to bring a formal motion for recusal, setting a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The self-represented plaintiff requested an adjournment of a scheduled case conference, submitting a brief medical note stating she was unable to attend court proceedings due to an ongoing disability.

The defendants opposed an indefinite abeyance, arguing the note lacked details on prognosis or necessary accommodations.

The court adjourned the case conference for a short period, directing the plaintiff to provide more extensive medical evidence of her disability and to propose reasonable accommodations, noting that the litigation could not be delayed indefinitely.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action alleging anti-Black discrimination in the workplace.

The defendants sought to schedule a case conference to advance their motion to strike the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiff resisted scheduling the case conference, asserting she was unable to proceed due to a disability caused by the defendants' conduct.

The case management judge held that while the court must accommodate litigants with disabilities, such accommodation does not extend to indefinite delays that prejudice the defendants' right to have the action determined.

The court scheduled a case conference and directed the plaintiff to consider her position regarding accommodation or retaining counsel.

The plaintiff, a lawyer employed by the Crown, moved for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate her salary and benefits pending the outcome of her action alleging racial discrimination and a toxic workplace.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute over pay and benefits fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act barred injunctive relief against the Crown, and the plaintiff failed to meet the stringent test for a mandatory injunction, including failing to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.