Barry Wadsworth

The plaintiff successfully obtained an interim injunction against the defendants during a labour strike that was causing significant delays to the plaintiff's operations.

The only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $205,000, including significant disbursements for private investigators, while the defendants suggested $15,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs excessive and punitive, noting the legal and factual issues were straightforward.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $37,083.80, which included a significantly reduced allowance for the investigator disbursements and legal fees.

The applicant alleged that his union and its officials discriminated against him on the basis of his disabilities (fibromyalgia, sleep disorder, and alcoholism) by failing to adequately represent him after his employer terminated his employment for failing to provide sufficient medical documentation.

The applicant claimed the union did not do enough to assist him, failed to properly represent his interests during the grievance process, and pressured him into accepting an improvident settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union's actions or inactions were based on the applicant's disabilities or that he was treated differently than other members because of discriminatory factors.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and union following the termination of his employment and a subsequent grievance settlement.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding the grievance settlement and release appropriately dealt with those allegations.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application against the union to proceed, as the allegations of discrimination by the union were not addressed in the grievance process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for breach of settlement, noting section 45.9 only applies to settlements of human rights applications.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's gaming registration based on his conduct during a strike, which led to a criminal charge for threatening bodily harm, and his failure to disclose Highway Traffic Act convictions.

The parties reached an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a two-week suspension of the Registrant's gaming registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's gaming employee registration based on his involvement in a picket line mischief incident and his failure to disclose Highway Traffic Act convictions on his disclosure forms.

Following an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered a three-week suspension of the Registrant's gaming registration.

The applicant, a real estate broker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) that found him guilty of professional misconduct for advertising properties without consent.

The applicant argued that RECO did not exercise a statutory power of decision and alleged bias in the disciplinary process.

The Divisional Court held that RECO's disciplinary bodies do exercise a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, as the applicant was provided full disclosure and a fair opportunity to be heard.

The self-represented applicant filed a notice of motion to review an order refusing leave to extend the time for bringing an appeal, but failed to perfect the motion.

The respondents sought to have the motion dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal declined to dismiss the motion, noting the lack of time limits in the Rules for perfecting such a motion, the applicant's unrepresented status, and the respondents' failure to bring a formal motion to dismiss.

The court scheduled the motion for a full hearing and set strict deadlines for perfection.