Eric P. Polten

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and disability after a professor denied her request for an extension and assigned her failing grades in December 2012.

She pursued internal academic appeals until May 2014 and filed her human rights application in May 2014.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the internal appeal processes were not a series of discriminatory incidents but rather the ongoing effects of the December 2012 decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of an internal appeal process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The moving party law firm brought a motion for directions, seeking payment of its solicitor's accounts from the Estate and the removal of the estate trustee.

The law firm argued it was retained by the Estate or, alternatively, was entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for acting as a 'lawyer of necessity'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Estate had terminated its retainer with the law firm in 2009 and never re-retained it.

The court also held that the law firm lacked standing under Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 50 of the Estates Act because it was not a creditor and had no financial interest in the Estate.

The quantum meruit claim failed as the services were not requested or acquiesced to by the Estate, and there was no basis to remove the estate trustee.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and breach of statutory duty against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and its employees.

The trial judge dismissed the action on the basis of statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Professional Engineers Act, finding the respondents acted in good faith.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on good faith or her refusal to extend the time for a jury notice.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in awarding solicitor and client costs, and reduced the costs to a party-and-party basis.

The appellant sought to appeal both the dismissal of a civil action and a substantial costs award to the Court of Appeal.

The trial judge had assessed damages at an amount below the Divisional Court monetary threshold while dismissing the action and fixing solicitor and client costs well above $25,000.

The court held that the main appeal lay to the Divisional Court under the Courts of Justice Act, and that the contingent costs appeal had to follow the main appeal rather than create Court of Appeal jurisdiction.

Both appeals were therefore transferred to the Divisional Court, with motion costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant police constable appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from an incident during crowd control at a football game.

The presiding officer found that the appellant failed to properly face the crowd as instructed, allowing disorderly individuals onto the field.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the presiding officer's conclusion that the appellant had not lived up to the duty imposed upon him.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of eight days off imposed after he pleaded guilty to a major charge of neglect of duty for being absent from court without reasonable excuse.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and inequitable.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not unduly harsh given the appellant's record of thirteen prior instances of neglect of duty, and that the presiding officer properly considered the cumulative effect of these misdemeanours.