James Donald Salvatore Heeney

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment arising from alleged employee fraud involving the sale of company furniture and retention of proceeds.

The defendant admitted converting assets and pleaded guilty in related criminal proceedings to defrauding the employer but disputed the full quantum of damages claimed.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability given the admissions and criminal conviction.

However, applying the “full appreciation test” from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court found that issues regarding the amount of damages and alleged restitution payments required a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore granted on liability only, with damages to be determined at trial.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceeding seeking production of the applicant's cell phone records, business records, and mitigation documents.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of mitigation and the applicant's allegation that she was framed for workplace misconduct.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested documents, subject to a temporal limitation on the cell phone records.

The applicant, a temporary legal assistant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, marital status, and reprisal against a law firm and a staffing agency after she was not considered for a subsequent job opening.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were merely speculative and accusatory, and there was no reasonable prospect that she could prove a link between the respondents' actions and any Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The parties sought on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2011, due to a death in the family of one of the respondents' witnesses.

The Tribunal found this constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing proceed on the scheduled dates for the applicant's case, and then be adjourned to a new date for the respondents' evidence.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing to attempt mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Directions and case law clearly state that the desire to explore settlement does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The parties were directed to immediately file their overdue witness statements and documents, and any preliminary motions would be dealt with at the outset of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on family status and association with a person identified by a Code-related ground, arising from an October 2, 2009 meeting with the individual respondent.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the human rights application were based on the same factual context and sought similar remedies.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tim Hortons franchisee and its franchisor, The TDL Group Corporation.

The Tribunal requested written submissions on whether the franchisor should remain a named respondent.

The applicant argued the franchisor had sufficient control over the franchisee's operations to be deemed an employer, and that removing it at a preliminary stage would be premature.

The franchisor withdrew its request for early dismissal.

The Tribunal directed that the franchisor remain a named respondent, noting that the question of its liability should be determined following evidence and argument at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination after his employment was terminated due to a plant closure.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he was distraught and under economic duress when he signed the release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release and that his financial difficulties did not amount to economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.