Carolyn Dunlop

The plaintiff corporation brought an action to enforce a promissory note for a $335,000 loan made to the defendants.

The defendants argued the note was not a bona fide loan but rather a tax evasion scheme devised by the plaintiff's principal, and that the funds were an advance on future earnings.

The court rejected the defendants' tax fraud allegations as unbelievable and found the promissory note to be a valid, enforceable contract.

The court held the defendants in default and ordered them to pay the outstanding balance of $191,387.02, or alternatively granted the plaintiff a security interest in the defendants' home.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent, the CEO and president of the corporate respondent, from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment termination.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the individual respondent was alleged to be the primary decision-maker who terminated the applicant, not merely an instrument of the corporation.

Furthermore, the corporate respondent's disclosed financial difficulties raised concerns about its ability to remedy any potential Code violation.

The Tribunal declined to remove the individual respondent.

The respondents requested an interim order striking paragraphs 7-30 of the Application, which detailed events during the applicant's prior employment that were subject to a full and final release.

The current Application alleged discrimination in the provision of services regarding the scheduling of an assessment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the employment history was not relevant to the current service-related accommodation claim and that striking the paragraphs was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural requests.

The applicant's request for anonymization was denied as premature, as no exceptional circumstances or substantial risks to privacy were established at this early stage.

The respondents' request to remove the personal respondent was granted on consent.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's objection to the respondents filing a prior Memorandum of Agreement, noting that confidentiality clauses typically permit disclosure required by law, and directed the applicant to respond to the respondents' motion to strike.