Kyle D. Burgis

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the successful defendant sought costs of $210,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of its $25,000 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to impecuniosity or a reduced amount due to divided success and the reasonableness of her claim.

The court found insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and held that the defendant's offer, being only slightly above nuisance value, did not warrant elevated costs under Rule 49.10(2).

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,978.67, noting the need to balance the successful party's entitlement with access to justice concerns.

The plaintiff, a long-term executive director of a not-for-profit chamber of commerce, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached her fiduciary duties through various financial irregularities, including altering a banking document, taking unauthorized vacation pay, and allowing an unauthorized pay raise to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff was a fiduciary and that her cumulative misconduct and poor judgment irredeemably fractured the employer's trust.

The court concluded the employer had just cause for termination and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff objected to the defendant adducing evidence of financial irregularities, arguing the defendant breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by failing to confront her with this evidence during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the defendant had generally met its obligations as the plaintiff was well aware of the allegations from pleadings and discovery.

The court held that the appropriate remedy for any specific transactions not put to the plaintiff would be to recall her to testify, rather than excluding the defendant's evidence.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested to amend her application to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, correct the corporate respondent's name, and amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and Persaud and found it fair and just to add the owner as a personal respondent, noting that his conduct was the central issue in the case and he had constructive notice of the application.

The requests to correct the corporate name and amend the remedies were granted on consent.

The respondent requested an order dismissing parts of a human rights application that alleged the applicant was enticed away from his former employer and subjected to non-Code-related workplace violence and harassment.

The Tribunal held that allegations of enticement and reliance on employer representations are not relevant to a Code violation or remedy.

Similarly, the cause of a disability, including non-Code-related workplace violence, is not relevant unless the conduct itself violates the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence regarding these allegations will not be received at the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that new evidence would be available in the future and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that anticipated future evidence does not constitute new facts or evidence under Rule 26.5(a), and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, which culminated in his resignation.

On the first day of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to retain legal counsel, which the Tribunal denied as the applicant had over six months' notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal then addressed the preliminary issue of timeliness.

Finding that the application was filed at least five days after the one-year limitation period expired, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting no medical evidence linked his mental health issues to the late filing.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against his former employer, a corporate respondent.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the business as an individual respondent, arguing that the owner was personally involved in the alleged discriminatory conduct and was attempting to sell the business.

The corporate respondent opposed the request.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found compelling reasons to add the owner as a respondent, noting his direct involvement in the allegations and concerns about the collectability of potential financial remedies if the business were sold.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal, the applicant sought disclosure of a proposed respondent's cellular phone text messages.

The proposed respondent consented to the disclosure and requested an order directing his cellular service provider to produce the call detail records.

The Tribunal ordered the service provider to produce the records for the specified date, with the proposed respondent to bear the administrative costs.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging family status discrimination sought a third-party production order for call detail records from Bell Canada to prove he was in contact with his employer during his absence.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the records were not relevant and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the records arguably relevant to establishing the timing of communications.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay Bell Canada's $250 production cost and adjourned the hearing to allow time for the records to be produced.