Bram Lecker

The plaintiffs, long-time kitchen cabinet delivery and installation workers who had been reclassified from employees to purported independent contractors in 1987, sought damages after termination without notice.

The court held that the relationship fell within the intermediate category of dependant contractors, emphasizing the plaintiffs’ near exclusivity, the defendant’s effective control, the integration of their work into the defendant’s business, and the absence of any real entrepreneurial opportunity.

Having regard to their long prior service and the overall relationship, the court awarded 26 months’ reasonable notice damages.

The action against one incorrectly named corporate defendant was dismissed without costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions upon his return from a medical leave.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had already commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action arose from the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged Code violations.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) acts as a mandatory bar to the application, even though the individual respondents were not named in the civil action.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a McDonald's employee allegedly made a passing comment about her pregnancy during a dispute over a drive-thru order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that a passing comment referring to pregnancy, without more, does not constitute discrimination or harassment under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being required to terminate her employment to receive long-term disability benefits.

Prior to the application, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice that explicitly pleaded and relied upon the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be barred under s. 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding dealt with the same allegations and subject matter, and that the omission of a specific request for an order under s. 46.1 in the civil claim did not prevent the application of the s. 34(11) bar.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Directors of the respondent denying its reaccreditation as a member agency.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was correctness.

The court found that the respondent followed its own procedures fairly, and there was ample evidence to support the denial of reaccreditation due to the appellant's non-compliance with accreditation standards.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.