John No

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for the release of an audio recording and to strike a reference in an affidavit, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful respondents, represented by a community legal clinic, sought $500 each.

The applicant opposed, arguing the respondents' counsel used an assumed name and failed to provide dockets.

The court found the requested amounts nominal and appropriate, ordering the applicant to pay $500 in costs to each respondent.

The appellant brought motions to set aside the orders of a motion judge, who had dismissed its motions to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of its Small Claims Court appeals.

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring it to order full trial transcripts.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, rejecting the self-represented appellant's argument that she misunderstood her obligations or was denied a fair hearing.

The motions were dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought an adjournment of a request for reconsideration on the basis that transcripts from the cross-examination of two affiants were not yet available.

The respondent objected, arguing the affidavits were irrelevant and the moving party had not moved expeditiously.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent, finding that the affidavits in question addressed issues that were either already resolved or irrelevant to the reconsideration request.

The request for an adjournment was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside the registrar's orders dismissing its Small Claims Court appeals for delay, and for an extension of time to appeal a single judge's order imposing conditions on the appeals.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to properly order trial transcripts or comply with court orders requiring security for costs and proof of transcript orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the registrar had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeals when the appellant failed to comply with the conditions set by the single judge.

The request for an extension of time was dismissed as moot.

The appellants brought motions to reinstate two appeals that were dismissed for delay by the registrar.

The appeals stemmed from Small Claims Court judgments finding that the respondents were employees, not independent contractors.

The registrar dismissed the appeals because the appellants failed to file proof of ordering transcripts on time.

The Divisional Court held that the registrar lacked the authority to dismiss the appeals because the appellants had filed proof of ordering the transcripts prior to the registrar's hearing, exhausting the registrar's administrative jurisdiction.

The motions were granted and the appeals reinstated, subject to strict conditions regarding service, transcript ordering, and the posting of security for costs.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant received notice of termination on November 2 or 5, 2012, effective November 9, 2012, and filed the application on November 6, 2013.

The Tribunal held that the final act of discrimination in a dismissal is the effective date of termination, not the date notice is received.

Therefore, the application was filed within the one-year time limit and the respondent's request was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order allowing two witnesses to testify by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request for one witness residing in Vancouver, noting that videoconferencing addresses demeanour concerns and the applicant could not afford to fly the witness to Toronto.

The request for the second witness was denied because the applicant failed to establish why the witness could not appear in person.

The applicant, a single mother, rented rooms in a house shared with the respondent landlord.

The respondent engaged in a persistent pattern of sexual solicitation, unwanted touching, and inappropriate comments, despite the applicant's clear rejections.

When the applicant confronted him, the respondent retaliated by issuing an eviction notice and making false reports to the police and her employer.

The respondent failed to participate in the Tribunal proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and solicitation under the Human Rights Code, and that the shared accommodation exemption did not apply to sexual harassment.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $25,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.