Kate McNeill-Keller

The plaintiff brought a motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for approval of a settlement agreement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged the employer failed to properly administer paperwork for statutory leaves, resulting in lower pension service for affected employees.

The court approved the $826,836 settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the risks of litigation including limitation defences and class fracturing.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fees of $301,575.80.

However, the court denied the request for a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, finding no exceptional circumstances or financial hardship to justify the payment.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the self-represented appellant and fixed in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The self-represented appellant appealed the dismissal of his action and his motion for summary judgment against his former employer.

The motion judge had called on the appellant first, advised him to focus on the cross-motion, and then reserved her decision without calling on the respondent to make submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a want of procedural fairness.

The appellant was entitled to hear the respondent's oral submissions on the cross-motion and have an opportunity to respond to them.

The order was set aside without prejudice to either party renewing their motion.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and assault by an employee of the organizational respondents.

She subsequently brought a request to add the alleged perpetrator as a personal respondent.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, citing delay and denying vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's conduct was central to the allegations and that adding him was necessary to ensure the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award a remedy, particularly since the organizational respondents did not accept vicarious liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship after being removed from a project and replaced with an American employee.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the civil claim did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil claim due to significant factual overlap and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent pressured him to work while ill and failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested the dismissal of allegations relating to events that occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the timeliness issue, finding that evidence was required to determine whether the earlier events formed a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal also issued directions for document disclosure and the upcoming mediation-adjudication.

The applicant, a student living in a university apartment, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, age, and reprisal after he was apprehended by police under the Mental Health Act, issued a trespass notice by the university, and later charged with criminal harassment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The allegations regarding the police apprehension did not involve the university, the complaint regarding the trespass notice was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and the allegations regarding the university providing information for a Form 2 did not fall within a protected social area under the Code.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ancestry, as well as reprisal, by the respondent university.

He claimed he was excluded from group projects, subjected to a racial slur by a fellow student, racially profiled by campus security, and that his grades were unfairly assessed.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be evasive, contradictory, and lacking credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it had adequately and reasonably investigated and responded to the applicant's complaints.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal against her former employer, a clinic, a union, and two individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were speculative and that she failed to point to any reasonably available evidence that could establish a link between the respondents' alleged actions and the grounds cited.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early production of her brother's employee file prior to mediation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that early disclosure is only ordered in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the belief that mediation would be more effective with the file was not an exceptional circumstance justifying early production.

The request was denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon her termination.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and did not explicitly mention human rights claims.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion of the will amounting to duress and held that the broad language of the release barred the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.