Elizabeth Dyke

The applicant brought a contempt motion and sought ancillary relief arising from an earlier order requiring the condominium corporation to take reasonable steps to ensure her quiet enjoyment, while also asking the court to adjudicate damages within the application.

The court held that the damages claim should proceed by action because the same claim was asserted in a companion action and proper adjudication required the participation of all relevant defendants and related crossclaims.

Applying the civil contempt standard, the court found no deliberate or wilful breach of the prior order beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly because the complained-of post-2013 noise was consistent with ordinary residential living.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The respondent was awarded $20,000 in costs on the motion.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code after the Commission decided not to refer her complaint to the Tribunal.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dealt with the merits of the complaint.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Commission's decision not to refer the complaint constituted dealing with its merits, and the applicant's subsequent request for reconsideration did not vitiate that decision.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party father sought leave to appeal an order refusing his request to set the matter down for trial regarding child access.

The children had not had contact with the father for several years, and a previous order stipulated that access would be at the children's discretion.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on point and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, which prioritized protecting the children from further conflict.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent had complied with the Minutes of Settlement by paying a lump sum of $27,000.

The appellant argued the respondent had a continuing obligation to make bimonthly salary payments and that the contra proferentem rule should apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the handwritten Minutes were clear on their face and contained no reference to continuing salary payments.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion.

The appellant appealed a decision, which was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal the motions judge's order that there be no order as to costs on the appellant's unsuccessful motion under Rule 49.09.

The respondent argued that the costs consequences of an unsuccessful summary judgment motion under Rule 20.06 should apply.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that Rule 20 costs consequences do not apply to Rule 49.09 motions.

Finding no reversible error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the respondent's motion for leave to appeal.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded for the appeal.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging her employment was terminated because she refused unsafe work.

The applicant had refused to print invoices, claiming that the stress caused by interpersonal conflicts with coworkers over the use of a shared printer endangered her health.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that stress from interpersonal conflict does not constitute a 'physical hazard' as required by section 43 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant did not genuinely believe her health and safety were in danger, but rather used the work refusal to force the employer to resolve the printer situation.