2 total
Tribunal declines to defer application or remove individual respondent in workplace discrimination claim.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability against her employer and its clinic manager.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a related complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and whether to remove the clinic manager as a personal respondent.
The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.
The Tribunal also refused to remove the individual respondent, noting that her alleged discriminatory remarks were a central issue and the corporate respondent had not assumed liability for her conduct.
Court permits pre‑trial examination of out‑of‑jurisdiction witness under Rule 36.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 36 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a former defendant and corporate executive before trial.
The witness had relocated outside Canada and the plaintiff argued the examination was necessary to preserve potentially crucial evidence regarding the hiring of a defendant.
The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that witnesses should generally testify at trial, particularly before a jury, and that alternative mechanisms such as letters rogatory were available.
The court held that Rule 36 was designed for circumstances where a witness may be outside the jurisdiction and could possess important evidence.
Leave was granted to conduct a pre‑trial examination of the witness, with the examination to be videotaped and undertakings completed beforehand.
