Anne-Marie Naccarato

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to withdraw allegations that her termination was a reprisal, focusing instead on allegations of harassment and a poisoned environment.

She also sought to clarify language regarding how her culture affected her feelings about complaining to her employer.

The respondent consented to the deletions but objected to the additions.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, noting that no findings of discrimination were being made at this stage.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to indicate whether it consented to the applicant's request for an adjournment due to a family medical emergency abroad.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled three-day hearing because her newly retained representative was unavailable on the third day and needed more time to review the file.

The respondent opposed the request but consented to rescheduling the third day if necessary.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that requests made outside the 14-day period require exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the unavailability of a representative or the need for more time to review the file did not meet this threshold.

The hearing was ordered to proceed on the first two scheduled days.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff’s law firm as solicitors of record on the basis of conflict of interest.

A lawyer associated with the firm had previously been retained by the hospital defendant to assist with workplace conflict mediation and had obtained confidential information while acting in that capacity.

The court found that the lawyer was an associate of the firm and that the hospital was therefore a client of the firm.

Applying the “bright line” rule from R. v. Neil and the principles from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that a law firm cannot act against a current client in directly adverse litigation absent informed consent.

Because confidential information was obtained and no effective screening measures existed, the firm was disqualified.