Karen J. Sanchez

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a discriminatory lay-off that occurred outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process and an internal employer investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for other legal proceedings or internal investigations to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an application.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his complaint that the landlord illegally entered his rental unit and invaded his privacy by taking photographs.

The Divisional Court found no error of law, noting the entry was authorized under section 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act for inspection purposes.

The court held that taking photographs during a lawful entry does not inherently infringe privacy rights if done for a proper purpose, such as preparing for an upcoming Board hearing.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested remedies arose from the liability issue of whether the respondent adequately addressed the alleged harassment, and that bifurcation would not result in a more expeditious hearing.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears.

The tenants argued the Board's reasons were deficient and misapprehended evidence regarding their verbal agreement for rent and superintendent services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that adequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision and that the tenants' arguments amounted to an attempt to revisit factual findings, which does not constitute an error of law.

The defendants brought motions seeking to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and for security for costs in a commercial dispute arising from an alleged breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for resort property.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, slander of title, and conspiracy relating to a failed $16 million transaction.

The court held that the action involved complex factual issues and significant credibility disputes, making it unsuitable for determination by summary judgment at an early stage.

The court further found that the corporate plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity with sufficient evidentiary detail and that there was no proven causal link between the defendants’ conduct and the plaintiff’s financial distress.

Security for costs was therefore ordered while the summary judgment motion was stayed pending further steps in the litigation.

The appellant law firm appealed an order that imposed terms effectively removing its solicitor's lien over client files for unpaid legal fees.

The respondents did not appear on the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge identified no basis for imposing the terms and the respondents failed to justify not imposing the lien or show efforts to pay the outstanding account.

A declaration was issued entitling the appellant to a solicitor's lien.