Jennifer Katsuno

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The applicant provided evidence that the FSCO application was withdrawn following a settlement with the respondent insurer, and the college proceedings were completed.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

She argued that proceedings before two medical colleges had concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the application was deferred pending the FSCO proceeding, not the college proceedings, and there was no indication that the FSCO proceeding was complete.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

The incidents in question occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that an unnamed Tribunal employee had advised her that her application was timely.

The Tribunal found this explanation insufficient to establish a good faith reason for the delay, noting that Tribunal staff do not provide legal advice.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal on various grounds.

The allegations primarily related to child protection proceedings, medical treatment, and benefit entitlements spanning several years.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the allegations either had no reasonable prospect of success, fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the delivery of a service based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the FSCO arbitration, raising a real risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the FSCO proceeding.

The appellant, Day & Ross Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $18,100 to the respondent, a factoring company that purchased invoices from a motor carrier.

Day & Ross had withheld payment, claiming equitable set-off for a spoiled load of cauliflower that it had paid the shipper for.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that Day & Ross acted as a load broker with no legal obligation to pay the shipper, that there was no implied assignment of the shipper's claim, and that equitable set-off did not apply.

The applicant, a medical doctor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, sex, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding hiring processes in 2009 and 2010 were out of time and removed them from the application.

However, the remaining allegations were found to constitute a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed the applicant to file an amended application.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered whether the plaintiff had shown cause why its action should not be dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff attributed the delay primarily to misconduct and inaction by an associate lawyer who had carriage of the file.

The court held that internal law firm disorganization, lack of supervision, and unanswered correspondence from opposing counsel did not constitute a reasonable explanation for prolonged inactivity.

Although no specific prejudice to the defendants was proven, the presumption of prejudice from delay was not displaced.

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiffs, a joint venture, sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising from a flawed government procurement process for relocation services.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown breached its implied contractual duty of fair and equal treatment by designing the Request for Proposals to favour the incumbent contractor, Royal LePage Relocation Services.

The court found that the Crown acted in bad faith, intentionally concealed preferences in the tender documents, and allowed the incumbent to submit a non-compliant bid regarding property management services.

The court declared the plaintiffs the successful tendering party and awarded them $29,166,507 in damages for lost profits.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.