Kathryn J. Bird

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The University of Waterloo sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering it to implement a Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) pilot project as a systemic remedy for discriminating against an applicant with learning disabilities.

The University argued the Tribunal improperly relied on inadmissible expert evidence and that the remedy violated its institutional autonomy over admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal did not improperly rely on inadmissible expert opinion and that the PLAR pilot project was a tailored, proportional remedy that respected the University's academic standards while addressing the specific discrimination suffered by the respondent.

The Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following her without-cause dismissal by the defendant.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and determined that the defendant's severance offer of 11.5 months was not within the reasonable range.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 16 months, capped at 15.5 months due to the plaintiff's successful mitigation.

The court awarded damages totaling $137,048.41, which included base salary, lost bonus, pension matching contributions, and benefits over the notice period.

The plaintiff staffing agency brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to temporary workers provided to the defendant.

The defendant admitted liability for the invoices but raised an equitable set-off defence, alleging the plaintiff was negligent or breached the contract in relation to a prior fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the defendant's own manager involving 'phantom labourers'.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the equitable set-off defence failed because the prior fraudulent invoices were not sufficiently closely connected to the unpaid invoices to directly impeach the plaintiff's claim.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing the employment contract was frustrated by the plaintiff's total disability.

The plaintiff argued the defendant failed to accommodate his disability after he expressed a desire to return to work.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contract was frustrated or if the defendant breached its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code, noting the employer's failure to explore accommodation options.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the appellants challenged Ontario jurisdiction and argued that procedural steps they took within that challenge did not amount to attornment.

The Court of Appeal held that requests for a temporary stay and to strike the amended pleading were procedural steps confined to obtaining a proper foundation for the jurisdiction motion and did not go beyond challenging jurisdiction.

The court therefore set aside the motion judge's ruling on attornment.

Exercising its appellate power, the court dismissed the temporary stay motion on the merits because the bankruptcy stays affecting the corporate defendants were unlikely to be lifted, and it ordered no costs given divided success.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of discrimination against a Children's Aid Society and its employees, as well as the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider the decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex, family status, and disability (Multiple Sclerosis) arising from a child access dispute and a request for a mental health assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was established.

The appellant's claim for long-term disability benefits was denied in 1995.

She commenced an action in 2006, which was dismissed on summary judgment for being outside the two-year limitation period prescribed by her employee benefit plan.

On appeal, the appellant argued the term 'covered event' was ambiguous and that a rolling limitation period should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the term 'covered event' was clear in context and occurred only once or twice, not monthly, precluding a rolling limitation period.