Larissa Volinets Schieven

The applicant, representing himself, filed a motion for reconsideration of an order permitting the respondent to file a requisition for a writ of seizure and sale to enforce a $2,500 costs award.

The applicant also sought leave to file a reply affidavit.

The Federal Court granted the motion for reconsideration in part, allowing an extension of time to file and correcting a clerical error regarding the date post-judgment interest began to accrue.

However, the Court rejected the applicant's argument that the underlying costs award could not be enforced during an appeal.

The motion for leave to file a reply affidavit was dismissed.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent.

A real estate investment management company appealed a trial judge's decision finding that it had repudiated its contract with a real estate broker and his operating company.

The trial judge found that the company had recruited the broker to undertake higher-value transactions in Ottawa but then repudiated the agreement by unilaterally imposing a $10 million ceiling on transactions and reserving transactions above that amount exclusively to its National Retail Investment Group.

The appellate court upheld the repudiation finding, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test and made no palpable and overriding error.

The respondents cross-appealed the costs award, and the appellate court granted leave and allowed the cross-appeal, increasing costs from $40,000 to $111,288 based on the rule 49.10(1) offer to settle.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences after his employment was terminated shortly after he was charged with criminal offences.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that his work restrictions were a factor in his termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the ground of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to convictions, not mere charges.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent college approximately six and a half years after his expulsion from a veterinary technician program.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that his mental health disability prevented him from filing earlier and that he was unaware of the process.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue his legal rights during the limitation period, and that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse.

The application was dismissed for delay.