Guy Hunter

The plaintiff brought an action against his former wife alleging misappropriation of joint property and claiming a resulting trust in a property located at 177 Morningview Trail.

The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement in Florida in 1999, which divided their assets and released all claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation or his claim to an interest in the property.

The documentary evidence confirmed the defendant as the sole beneficial owner of the property, and the plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement to the contrary as required by the Statute of Frauds.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants filed applications alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by attempting to introduce a property search in a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The applicants argued that the search was conducted using information obtained during the mediation process, violating a confidentiality agreement signed prior to mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement only prohibited disclosure of the terms of the settlement itself.

The Tribunal noted that a contravention application under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code must be based on a breach of the settlement agreement, not a breach of a pre-mediation confidentiality agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following his termination after a workplace injury.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts, seeking damages for breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application when a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant argued the civil proceeding was taking too long, and the respondents consented to the re-activation.

The Tribunal declined to re-activate the application, finding that the significant overlap in issues and requested remedies between the two proceedings warranted continued deferral despite the parties' consent.