Jordan Afolabi

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to restrain a harassment investigation, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling over $38,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on proportionality and reasonableness.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Queen's University and Cunningham, and $10,000 for Anand, balancing the plaintiffs' chaotic conduct of the motion with principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs, a university student and a community member, brought an urgent motion seeking to stay or enjoin an ongoing harassment investigation by Queen's University and its independent investigator.

They also sought a mandatory order requiring the University to investigate a separate discrimination complaint.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the investigator's independence was not compromised, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative process, and no mandatory duty to investigate the discrimination complaint had been triggered.

The court addresses the issue of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiff's successful motion to amend his Statement of Claim to add Human Rights Code claims.

The court reviews the appropriate scale for such costs, the timing of the assessment, and the quantum to be awarded.

Ultimately, the court fixes the amount of costs thrown away at $52,549, payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and provides detailed reasons for the calculation and allocation of these costs.

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

The decision addresses motions by the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim to add explicit human rights claims previously advanced before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), and to add two new defendants.

The court grants leave to amend to add the Code-related claims, finding that the amendments do not introduce new causes of action but rather new remedies arising from the same factual matrix.

The court denies leave to add new defendants, as claims against them are statute-barred.

The court also addresses costs thrown away on an abandoned injunction motion, awarding partial indemnity costs to the defendants.