Katrina Marciniak

The appellant signed a guarantee included within a registered mortgage document.

Following a default and power of sale resulting in a deficiency, the mortgagee sued the appellant on the guarantee.

The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period for demand obligations in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that guarantees found in a mortgage instrument are governed by the Real Property Limitations Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, specifically related to her pregnancies and subsequent leaves.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove several personal respondents from the application.

The applicant consented to the removal of two respondents but opposed the removal of two others, Jarrett and Melanson.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the remaining personal respondents, finding that their alleged conduct fell within the normal course of their employment and that the corporate respondent had accepted liability for their actions should discrimination be found.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that her prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint was a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, the ESA officer's decision focused on reprisal for taking statutory leaves and did not address the broader allegations of discrimination based on sex and pregnancy, including alleged disparaging remarks.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy and parental leave) following the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The request to reactivate was filed outside the 60-day timeframe.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to reactivate, noting the short delay and lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, directing the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the issue.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent on a promissory note, share purchase agreement, and guarantee.

The appellants relied on an alleged collateral agreement as a defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of any collateral agreement in the record to justify looking behind the terms of the written documents.