H.E. Sachs

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision ordering it to produce copies of a statement of claim and statements of defence to a unit owner.

The appellant argued the records were protected by litigation privilege and exempt from disclosure under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that exchanged pleadings are public documents that do not attract litigation privilege, and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to order disclosure.

The appellant appealed a final order varying spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred by excluding the respondent's post-separation income increases, setting the retroactivity date to 2018 instead of 2016, determining the separation income at $117,000, and using the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary decisions.

The court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent's income increases were unrelated to the marriage and that the appellant's evidentiary gaps justified a low-range SSAG award.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that partially dismissed his claims of discrimination in the hiring process for a law firm associate position.

The HRTO had found age discrimination, racial discrimination, and reprisal by the respondents, but dismissed other allegations.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the HRTO Vice-Chair breached procedural fairness, misapprehended evidence, and committed errors of law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's process was fair, free of bias, and its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that the individual applicant sexually harassed the respondent by exposing himself to her on two occasions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were rational and grounded in evidence, its consideration of male/female power dynamics was appropriate, its conclusion that the respondent was an employee was consistent with jurisprudence, and its damages award was reasonable and entitled to deference.