7 total
Applicants seeking to introduce fresh evidence on judicial review must bring a formal motion for leave.
On an application for judicial review, a preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of two affidavits filed by the applicants containing evidence that was not before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The respondents objected to the admissibility of the affidavits, but no formal motion to strike or for leave to introduce the evidence had been brought.
The Divisional Court held that the onus is on the party seeking to file fresh evidence to bring a motion for leave in advance of the application.
The court adjourned the matter to permit the applicants to bring such a motion.
Human rights application dismissed as abuse of process after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age and receipt of public assistance.
A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant engaged in extensive correspondence disputing the proper respondents and requested adjournments, which were denied.
After being explicitly warned that failure to attend could result in dismissal, the applicant failed to call into the scheduled telephone hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process and declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant without proper notice.
Human rights application dismissed; knocking on tenant's door to move bicycle was not discriminatory.
The applicant, a tenant with a disability, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him, harassed him, and engaged in reprisal by knocking on his door to inform him his bicycle was being moved, despite a 'do not disturb' sign and an alleged accommodation agreement requiring written communication.
The Tribunal found that the respondents' actions were reasonable, did not constitute discrimination or harassment, and were not a reprisal for previous human rights complaints.
The application was dismissed.
Termination indemnity triggered when employer decides to terminate within contract term.
The employer sought judicial interpretation of an indemnity clause in an employment contract providing for two years’ salary, bonuses, and benefits if the company decided to terminate the employee within four years of signing.
The court held that the indemnity obligation was triggered when the decision to terminate was made, not when the termination was communicated.
Because the employer decided to terminate within the four‑year period but delayed communicating the decision until after the period expired, the contractual indemnity applied.
Relying on appellate authority, the court further held that where a termination clause stipulates compensation and is silent on mitigation, the employee has no duty to mitigate.
The employee was therefore entitled to the contractual lump sum, subject only to credit for salary continuation payments already made.
Applications alleging discrimination over rent payment dates and reprisal over bulletin board removal summarily dismissed.
The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal.
The first application alleged the landlord discriminated by changing the rent payment date to the first of the month, which caused the applicant, an ODSP recipient, to fall into arrears.
The second application alleged reprisal after the landlord, accompanied by police, returned the applicant's personal bulletin board.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the landlord's actions did not amount to discrimination or reprisal under the Code.
Appeal dismissed; constructive dismissal and damages upheld where employer unilaterally changed employment terms.
The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the employer unilaterally and fundamentally changed the terms of employment.
The Court also agreed it was objectively unreasonable to expect the employee to return to work for the same small employer after losing faith in them.
The damages awarded were upheld based on the Bardal factors, considering the employee's age, length of service, position, and difficulty finding other work.
Appeal dismissed; tender of certified cheque did not undermine finding that full invoice amount was owing.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it owed the respondent $22,987.50 based on unpaid invoices.
The appellant conceded the amount was owed and did not appeal the dismissal of its counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal held that while there was uncontradicted evidence a certified cheque was tendered, this did not undermine the conclusion that the full amount was owing based on the invoices.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
