Kathryn Meehan

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review, the respondents sought costs.

The underlying dispute involved a failed $250 used car sale, which the applicant escalated into numerous administrative and legal proceedings.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 against the applicant, finding his proceedings to be frivolous and vexatious.

Additionally, the court revoked the applicant's fee waiver under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act and prohibited him from obtaining further fee waivers in related proceedings without prior judicial permission.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions stemming from a failed car sale in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's claims, which were based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and concluding that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the five-year delay.

The court also raised concerns that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and invited submissions on whether the applicant's fee waiver should be cancelled.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her family status regarding her work schedule and terminated her employment because of her family status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not clearly communicate a need for accommodation and that her work hours were not excessive.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant was terminated for performance issues, not due to her family status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, record of offences, reprisal, disability, and marital status.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a Code infringement and, alternatively, to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found sufficient facts to support a potential claim of discrimination based on disability, as the applicant alleged he was under stress and received medical treatment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the marital status claim, finding no link between the applicant's marital status and the alleged differential treatment.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents at this preliminary stage.