Kiteley J.

The appellant appealed an order made at a settlement conference which found her claim for equalization of net family property to be statute-barred.

The respondent conceded that the settlement conference judge lacked jurisdiction to make that order, but argued it was justified under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that while judges can make orders at settlement conferences to promote fairness, notice must be given.

Since no notice was given regarding the limitation period issue, the appeal was granted and the order was set aside.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.