K.C. Wysynski

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after an eight-day trial, the court considered written costs submissions.

The defendant sought enhanced costs due to the plaintiff's conduct, including reducing her claim at trial, frustrating document preparation, failing to respond to undertakings, and rejecting settlement offers.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding the defendant $54,108.36, inclusive of legal fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court declined to award enhanced costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct, while impacting costs, did not meet the "reprehensible" threshold required for such an award, as established in *Davies v. Clarington (Municipality)*.

The court emphasized the principle of reasonableness in fixing costs, as per *Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario)*, and considered the complexity of the legal issues involved.

The plaintiff sued her former employer for constructive dismissal and human rights violations after returning from maternity leave.

The employer required her to start work at 8:30 a.m., whereas she previously had flexibility to arrive later due to childcare.

The court found that the employer had not changed the essential terms of her employment, as she was always expected to be available in the early mornings when required.

The court also dismissed the human rights claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish family status discrimination and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process by withholding information about her childcare situation.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, her application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration, explaining she had started a new job and forgot the hearing date.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that forgetting a hearing date due to a new job does not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engages in regular and continuous transportation of goods beyond provincial boundaries, placing its operations under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss her human rights application against the respondent condominium corporation and property management company.

The respondents agreed to the dismissal but requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant to prevent future re-litigation.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to dismiss the application in its entirety, noting that this dismissal effectively prevents the applicant from re-litigating the substance of the application in the future.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss her human rights application against the respondent Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision confirming a previous Case Assessment Direction that dismissed the application against HCC No. 41, with reasons to follow.

The Tribunal also noted that a preliminary hearing was being scheduled to address whether the entire application should be dismissed as an abuse of process, whether the application against the remaining respondent stands no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against her condominium corporation filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and permission to add three new witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the production requests, finding that the requested board minutes, reserve fund report, and electrical safety correspondence were either not requested in a timely manner or lacked arguable relevance to the issues in dispute, particularly the accommodation of the applicant's mobility scooter.

The request to add witnesses was also denied as the proposed witnesses lacked relevant information.

The Tribunal further directed that the respondents' motion to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success would be heard after the close of the applicant's evidence.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a request for an order during proceedings to amend the style of cause, arguing that its Board of Directors is not a legal entity and cannot be named as a respondent.

The Tribunal agreed and ordered the style of cause amended to name the condominium corporation itself.

The Tribunal also considered whether individual board members should be added as personal respondents.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to add the individuals, as the corporation accepted vicarious liability for their actions and the applicant conceded she had no evidence against them personally.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend his human rights application and to add and remove certain respondents.

The respondents consented to some changes but opposed the addition of legal submissions and certain personal respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the factual amendments but excluded the legal submissions, noting they are more appropriate for closing arguments.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Condominium Board of Directors as it is not a legal entity, and declined to add individual board members as personal respondents because the Condominium Corporation acknowledged vicarious liability for their actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal, in relation to her employment and its termination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding incidents prior to the termination of employment were untimely, as the applicant failed to provide specific dates and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Regarding the termination itself, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any material evidence linking the termination to a protected ground or establishing the elements of reprisal.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because her representative had a scheduling conflict in small claims court.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the representative's scheduling conflict did not constitute exceptional circumstances to warrant an adjournment.