Carol F. Q. Mackillop

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions heard on September 4, 2018.

The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim was largely successful, as the impugned allegations were found to be scandalous, embarrassing, and untenable in law.

The defendants Perry and Premier's motion for contempt of court against the plaintiff was dismissed due to a slim prospect of success and marginal utility.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff against defendants Clifford Perry and 2543727 Ontario Ltd. o/a Premier Stairs and Railings for both motions, citing the reprehensible and scandalous nature of the struck pleadings and the redundancy of the contempt motion.

No costs were awarded against Kevin Gurnsey.

The plaintiff moved to strike certain portions of the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim, alleging they were untenable in law, irrelevant, or scandalous.

The court allowed the motion, striking allegations related to stress and anxiety as scandalous and lacking probative value.

Claims of sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code were also struck because the plaintiff corporation was not vicariously liable for a co-worker's alleged harassment under sections 5(2) or 7, and the defendants failed to plead a claim of discrimination based on a poisoned work environment under section 5(1).

No leave to amend the pleadings was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending the resolution of a related criminal matter, and sought an extension of time to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to file an amended Response on consent and extended the deadlines for document exchange and witness statements.

The member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after telling a student, 'Get to the office!

I'm so angry I could go through that locker,' which the student perceived as a threat.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, verbally abusing a student, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a course on effective communication strategies, and publication of the decision without the member's name, noting the member's unblemished record and the minor nature of the incident.

The applicant filed a human rights application under s. 34 of the Code.

The respondents sought early dismissal under s. 53(8), arguing the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant had submitted a complaint form to the Commission, it was never assessed or formally 'filed' within the meaning of the Code's transition provisions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' arguments that the application was an abuse of process or barred by s. 45.1 due to a withdrawn labour relations application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's parallel transition application under s. 53(5), as no complaint had been formally filed with the Commission.