Jordan Rowland Douglas Lester

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision where the deputy judge awarded costs without hearing submissions from either party.

The deputy judge subsequently ruled she was functus officio and could not hear submissions regarding an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by concluding she was functus officio before hearing costs submissions, and remitted the matter back to the deputy judge to determine costs.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and discriminatory termination by her store manager.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the touching, ongoing harassment, and discriminatory termination to be unreliable and dismissed those allegations, finding her termination was due to poor sales performance.

However, the Tribunal found that the store manager's comment to the applicant that 'the shorter the skirt the better, and show cleavage' in response to a dress code inquiry constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the manager to undergo human rights training.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to produce medical and income records as previously ordered.

The applicant claimed she did not have the documents in her possession.

The Tribunal held that a production order requires a party to produce documents reasonably within their control, and that the requested documents (such as EI and tax records) were within the applicant's control.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but ordered the applicant to produce the documents or specifically explain her efforts to obtain them, noting that unexplained failure could lead to an adverse inference or amount to an abuse of process.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and re-attend for examination.

The motion was dismissed due to its late timing and the defendant's counsel's delay and discourteous conduct.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was brought inappropriately late.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's counsel's conduct inappropriate but not rising to the level warranting substantial indemnity, and applied the principles of reasonableness and access to justice under Rule 57.01 and the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant requested that her doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference because the doctor now lives in Whitehorse.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that such requests are frequently granted when credibility is unlikely to be an issue.

The applicant, a manager trainee, went on medical leave due to a leg injury.

Despite keeping his manager informed and providing medical notes, he was terminated when he attempted to return to work, with the employer claiming he had abandoned his position.

The employer also refused to rehire him due to concerns he might reinjure himself.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability and that the termination and refusal to rehire were discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $17,777 for lost earnings and $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff to answer undertakings from an examination for discovery and re-attend for further examination.

The undertakings concerned financial records for the plaintiff's business, which the plaintiff deemed irrelevant, having provided Canada Revenue Agency notices of assessment.

The defendant delayed over a year in bringing the motion, despite repeated attempts by the plaintiff's counsel to arrange for continuation of examinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's delay inappropriate and noting the significant potential for trial delay.

The court emphasized that the defendant had ample opportunity for discovery and was not precluded from cross-examining on financial records at trial, applying principles of proportionality and orderly progress of the action.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding the maintenance of a private drive, the successful respondent sought costs of $14,161.93.

The respondent relied on an offer to settle that would have provided the applicants with more than they achieved at the hearing.

The applicants argued the offer was not sufficiently certain to trigger Rule 49.

The court found the offer was valid and should be considered.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants, property owners on a lakefront, sought a declaration that a private road leading to their properties had become a municipal roadway through the doctrine of dedication and acceptance.

The municipality had performed casual winter maintenance on the road pursuant to historical agreements that explicitly stated the road remained private.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the road was on Crown land, was not dedicated to public use, and that the municipality's maintenance work did not constitute a clear and unequivocal intention to assume responsibility for the road.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Goldcorp Canada Ltd. as a respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant, who alleged failure to accommodate her mould allergy, opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that it is up to the applicant to determine the respondents against whom she wishes to proceed, and she had made no allegations against Goldcorp.

The respondent requested the production of the applicant's medical and employment records in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant opposed the request as untimely.

The Tribunal found the request was not premature as the deadline for disclosure of arguably relevant documents had passed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation, mitigation, and remedy.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion for leave to conduct a second examination for discovery of the corporate defendant and sought substantial indemnity costs due to alleged unreasonable delay by the defendant.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct did not reach the level of aggressive or contumelious behaviour required.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $1,000 for fees plus disbursements, reflecting a fair and reasonable amount for an uncomplicated procedural motion.

An employee alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful dismissal after being placed on leave following repetitive strain injuries and later receiving a termination letter.

The court held the employer had accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship before placing him on leave and did not breach the duty to accommodate during the subsequent leave period because the employee failed to provide medical information supporting a return to work.

However, the employer’s January 2013 termination constituted wrongful dismissal and was influenced in part by the employee’s disability.

The court awarded 15 months’ pay in lieu of notice but deducted workers’ compensation benefits received during the notice period.

Additional damages were awarded for discrimination arising from the termination itself.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion seeking a declaration that its former employee was in civil contempt of a consent order prohibiting solicitation of certain clients.

The alleged breach was based on an affidavit recounting statements and an email from a third‑party client asserting that the defendant had contacted the client and obtained an order.

The defendant denied solicitation and filed responding affidavit evidence explaining that the contact related to compensation for defective furniture supplied by his new employer.

The court held that the moving party’s evidence consisted entirely of hearsay concerning contested facts and therefore breached Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing contempt motions.

Because contempt is quasi‑criminal and requires strict procedural compliance and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the hearsay evidence was inadmissible and there was no admissible evidence to support the allegation.

In a wrongful dismissal and Human Rights Code action, the plaintiff sought leave under Rule 31.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine a second corporate representative of the defendant.

The initially examined representative had not reviewed a large disability insurer file produced in the litigation and lacked knowledge of communications with the insurer.

The court held that requiring numerous undertakings from an unprepared witness would cause undue expense and inefficiency.

Because another corporate officer had direct knowledge of the relevant communications, leave to conduct a limited second discovery was appropriate.

The examination was restricted to questions arising from the insurer’s long-term disability file and capped at 1.5 hours.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding concerned the cause of the applicant's injury, whereas the human rights application concerned the respondent's duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

As the duty to accommodate applies regardless of the cause of the disability, the facts and issues did not overlap sufficiently to warrant deferral.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant contractor to comply with a request for information under s. 39(1)(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court found that the plaintiff was requesting information about a subcontract to which it was a party, and therefore should already have knowledge of the information sought.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding after the respondent failed to file an Answer despite being ordered to do so at a case conference.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on custody, support, or related financial matters.

The applicant, who had always been the primary caregiver, was granted sole custody, with the order silent as to access due to the respondent’s lack of involvement.

Child support was ordered in the amount of $1,734 per month based on the respondent’s income, along with proportionate contribution to section 7 expenses, annual financial disclosure obligations, and designation of the children as beneficiaries under employment benefits and life insurance.

Costs of $2,500 were also awarded to the applicant.

The applicant, a Caucasian employee who followed First Nations spiritual practices, alleged discrimination and harassment by two board members of the Nishnawbe-Gamik Friendship Centre.

The Tribunal found that one respondent, Chris Carter, harassed the applicant by questioning his right to possess traditional medicines because he was not a First Nations person, making comments at an AGM questioning the job security of non-First Nations staff, and making derogatory comments about the applicant's family status after his dismissal.

The application against the other respondent, Ralph Johnson, was dismissed as there was no evidence connecting his actions to a Code ground.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect against Chris Carter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The application was previously withdrawn against the organizational respondent, Nishnawbe-Gamik Friendship Centre.

The individual respondent, Ralph Johnson, requested to be removed as a party.

The Tribunal directed submissions on whether the Centre remained a proper respondent.

The Tribunal treated the applicant's submissions as a request for reconsideration of the withdrawal order and denied it, finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to reverse the withdrawal.

Consequently, the Centre was not reinstated as a respondent.

Because no organizational respondent remained, the Tribunal denied the individual respondent's request to be removed from the application.