John T. Zuber

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed late and that the arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding no duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal noted the potential application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, which allows dismissal if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal ordered a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex regarding a denial of promotion and termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

Both the applicant and the employer respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for security for costs, authorizing the respondent to control the conduct of the intended action, and awarding costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's refusal to order security for costs, noting the action was neither vexatious nor frivolous.

The court also upheld the costs award and found the order for directions was a sensible interlocutory order authorized by the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her weekly income benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony regarding her pre-accident health and essential tasks to be unreliable.

Relying on objective medical evidence and reports from rehabilitation facilities, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant was no longer substantially disabled from performing her essential tasks as a homemaker when her benefits were terminated.

The claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed, while a claim for gas expenses was settled during the hearing.