Gregory Joseph Power

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion brought by the defendant, Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc., against the plaintiff, Nicole Barrette.

Bombardier sought approximately $16,780.50 in partial and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10, having been entirely successful in the underlying motion.

Barrette argued the claim was excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $1,500, citing the simplified procedure limits under Rule 76 and the limited impact of some motion issues on the overall litigation.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 57.01(1), considered the offer to settle, proportionality, and local counsel rates, ultimately awarding Bombardier $5,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was deferred pending the outcome of an Employment Standards Act claim.

After the ESA claim concluded, the applicant failed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate the application within the 60-day period required by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a freelance writer and volunteer community editorial board member for the Guelph Mercury, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the newspaper, the Ontario Press Council, and the Guelph General Hospital.

The applicant claimed the hospital discriminated against him based on race when responding to his inquiries for an article, and that the newspaper engaged in reprisal by removing him from the editorial board after he complained.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own beliefs connecting the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness was unavailable due to a religious pilgrimage, and also requested the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, ordering the hearing to proceed as scheduled with the option to hear the unavailable witness at a later date if necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that his individual conduct was a central issue in the allegations of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that they are federally regulated and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the matter be deferred pending resolution of a parallel proceeding under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional issue was uncertain and that it would be most fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application rather than put the parties to further expense and delay.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent WSIB proceedings regarding his return to work following a workplace injury.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive the full 14 days to respond to the respondents' original deferral request.

The Tribunal considered the request under Rule 14.5 but declined to re-activate the application, finding that proceeding concurrently with the WSIB appeal would create a real risk of contradictory findings regarding whether the proposed return-to-work duties were within the applicant's medical restrictions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding threats and accusations related to his return to work following a workplace injury.

The respondents brought a request to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings dealing with the appropriateness of the return to work plan.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact between the Tribunal and the WSIB.