Katharine Montpetit

The applicant requested to amend the application to name Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as the respondent instead of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The Tribunal granted the amendment.

The Tribunal also considered two intervention requests.

The Canadian Association for Community Living, Community Living Ontario and People First of Canada were granted limited intervenor status to call evidence on the context of community living and deinstitutionalization.

The Bazelon Centre for Mental Health Law's request to intervene to provide a comparative perspective on U.S. anti-discrimination laws was denied, as the parties could provide this assistance themselves.

The appellant received long-term disability benefits from the respondent insurer.

Unaware that the appellant had retired and was receiving superannuation benefits, the respondent failed to deduct those benefits and overpaid the appellant by approximately $114,000 over five years.

To recoup the overpayment, the respondent reduced the appellant's monthly disability payments by 50 per cent.

The appellant sued, arguing the policy did not permit the reduction and that the insurer breached its fiduciary duty and duty of good faith.

The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy permitted the insurer to reduce current benefits to recover past overpayments and that no ad hoc fiduciary duty existed.

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to have its motion to dismiss heard at the outset of the hearing, or alternatively to bifurcate the liability phase, and to strike certain witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the requests for a summary hearing and bifurcation, finding them to be attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to exclude certain witness evidence during the liability phase, as the proposed evidence related to remedial issues such as the impact of the alleged discrimination on the applicant's career and finances.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process requested an interim order for the production of historical versions of a declaration form and related council minutes.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the specific allegations in the applicant's pleadings, which focused on the automatic revocation of temporary registration rather than the requirement to disclose physical or mental conditions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process discriminates against applicants with disabilities.

The Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) requested intervenor status, arguing it has an interest in the outcome as it represents nurses and the applicant was a member.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing ONA's participation would cause delay and duplication, as ONA and the applicant share the same legal counsel.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status but limited its participation to making written and oral submissions following the completion of evidence, finding that broader participatory rights would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into three phases, separating the allegations against the College from those against Ontario, and separating liability from remedy.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the issues were intertwined.

The Tribunal found that the liability issues against both respondents were intertwined and should be heard together to avoid duplicating evidence.

However, given the complex and unusual remedies sought, the Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated into two stages: liability first, followed by remedy if necessary.