Kiké Roach

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, family status, and marital status, as well as reprisal, regarding her failure to obtain teaching positions.

The Tribunal ruled that allegations prior to 2006 had already been dealt with or were out of time.

After hearing evidence on the remaining 2006-2007 allegations, the applicant sought to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal refused the withdrawal and dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence that the applicant's failure to obtain positions was related to her age, marital or family status, or previous human rights complaints.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.

The appellant sued the respondents for libel arising from a newspaper article.

Prior to filing a statement of defence, one of the individual respondents successfully moved to strike the claim against him on the basis that he was not personally served with a libel notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the alternative mode of service in s. 5(1)—delivery to a grown-up person at the defendant's chief office—applies to all defendants, including individuals.

Delivery of the notice to an assistant at the respondent's campaign headquarters constituted effective service.