Kevin Anthony Egan

The applicant filed an application under section 23(3) of the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved the matter.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew her application, and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase the monetary damages sought and to put the respondents on notice to retain her personnel file.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the new remedy was vague and the damages too remote.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments related to relief sought rather than new allegations, and that there was no prejudice to the respondents as a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant challenged a determination concerning whether a bank account constituted a debt payable to an individual partner or to the partnership for the purposes of Rule 60.08(1.1).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons below and held that the account was a debt payable to the partnership, not to the individual partner among others as a partner.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.