Karen Sanchez

The plaintiff estate sought costs following a trial where it recovered a portion of the $30 million claimed from the defendant, including an 80% interest in a property.

The defendant counterclaimed for sexual abuse, which was dismissed.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party and entitled to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party based on unproven allegations of fraud and sexual abuse, finding the allegations did not amount to reprehensible conduct warranting chastisement.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $800,000 on a partial indemnity basis, reflecting its divided success.

The respondent non-profit housing cooperative requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it failed to adequately address serious and persistent harassment directed at the applicants.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred by applying the reasonableness standard from employment jurisprudence without accounting for the unique nature of volunteer-run housing cooperatives.

The respondent also challenged the remedial orders, which included monetary compensation and requirements to post the decision and notify members.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the reconsideration request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that the respondent failed to propose an alternative legal standard.

However, the Tribunal removed the requirement to post the decision on the cooperative's bulletin board, finding it redundant given the requirement to send notices directly to members.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to increase the monetary remedies claimed to $92,812.03 and to add UNIFOR as a respondent.

The respondent Quinte Healthcare Corporation took no position, and UNIFOR did not file submissions.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it was fair to add UNIFOR.

The Tribunal granted both requests, amending the monetary remedies and adding UNIFOR as a respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested remedies arose from the liability issue of whether the respondent adequately addressed the alleged harassment, and that bifurcation would not result in a more expeditious hearing.