Hermie Yaba Abraham

The applicant filed two applications under the Human Rights Code.

The first alleged that his former employer breached the confidentiality clause of a prior settlement agreement by making negative comments about him in the auto industry.

The second alleged that another dealership refused to hire him because he had filed a human rights application against his former employer, constituting discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistent evidence and disruptive behaviour during the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the refusal to hire the applicant was based on his poor reputation in the industry, not on any knowledge of his prior human rights application.

Both applications were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The respondent, Ajax Nissan, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its witnesses and its representative was unable to attend due to medical treatments.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the applications should proceed separately.

The co-respondent, Midway Nissan, consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical treatment constituted an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction, and reaffirmed that the two applications should be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings of credibility.

The applicant filed two applications: one alleging a breach of settlement against Ajax Nissan, and another alleging reprisal and discrimination against Midway Nissan.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be heard together, given that both arose from the same factual matrix and involved overlapping witnesses.

The respondents supported hearing the matters together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be heard together, finding it the most fair and expeditious approach.

The judgment creditor brought a motion for directions regarding enforcement of a writ of seizure and sale and related garnishment proceedings against the judgment debtor.

A mortgagee who was not a party to the action sought an adjournment to permit filing further materials and cross‑examinations, while opposing the judgment creditor’s request that any proceeds of sale of the debtor’s property be paid into court pending determination of mortgage priority issues.

The court found several concerning circumstances surrounding the mortgage assignment, including its timing after registration of the writ and the non‑arm’s‑length relationship between the mortgagor and mortgagee.

To preserve the rights of all parties while related family law, power of sale, and enforcement proceedings continued, the court granted the adjournment but imposed a condition that sale proceeds be paid into court if the property sold.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed more than 16 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for his union grievance to conclude and had been advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pursue the grievance first.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanations, finding no evidence that he was advised to delay his application or that he was misled by his union.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.