Laura Karabulut

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs exceeding full indemnity, while the defendants argued for costs in the cause or a reduced amount due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found that the defendants did not act in bad faith or unreasonably in bringing the motion, noting that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff's counsel.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $25,735.54.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and three individual managers for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, alleging workplace harassment and reprisal.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims against the individual defendants were factually intertwined with the claims against the corporate employer and were not readily separable.

The court concluded that granting partial summary judgment would create a material risk of inconsistent findings and would not be a proportionate or cost-effective way to resolve the litigation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned in accordance with its Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.

The applicant sought to consolidate two human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal by the respondent employer.

The respondent argued the second application should be deferred pending the resolution of the first.

The Tribunal found that because the parties and the workplace were the same, and there was an overlap of issues and evidence, it was most fair, just, and expeditious to consolidate the applications.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include additional allegations regarding lack of accommodation, systemic discrimination, and expanded remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to lack of accommodation for a permanent job, assertions made by the respondent, and expanded remedies including reinstatement and damages.

The Tribunal denied the request to add allegations regarding a gradual onset injury as it was outside the one-year limitation period, and denied the addition of systemic discrimination claims as they did not address the fundamental issue of individual accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed case management issues.

The applicant's vague request for an order to add parties was denied for lack of information.

The respondent's request to adjourn the hearing due to the unavailability of two key witnesses was also denied, as the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The Tribunal further ordered both parties to comply with document disclosure and witness list rules.

The applicant requested to reschedule a hearing date because her newly retained representative was unavailable due to an out-of-country family matter.

The respondent and intervenor did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested more than 14 days after the Confirmation of Hearing are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that retaining counsel who is unavailable on an already scheduled date does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age following his termination.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant sought to amend his application to add allegations of racial discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to the significant delay and the fact that the new allegations were completely unrelated to the original filing.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's original claims regarding disability and age discrimination could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and directed the matter to continue in the Tribunal process.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for October 3, 2012, because her sister was suffering from a life-threatening illness and required significant care and attention.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the sister's serious illness and the family's need to make grave decisions regarding her care constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The request was granted, and the parties were directed to provide new dates within 12 weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, and reprisal, stemming from a workplace assault and subsequent events.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to the investigation of the assault, safety shoe checks, and reprisal, finding no evidence linking them to a prohibited ground under the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the respondent breached its duty to accommodate the applicant's physical restrictions to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, harassment, and reprisal after his employer eliminated the midnight shift and transferred him to the afternoon shift, which conflicted with his child access arrangements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer met any duty to accommodate by delaying the transfer and offering temporary schedule modifications to allow the applicant time to alter his access arrangements.

The applicant failed to facilitate the accommodation and resigned.

The harassment and reprisal claims were also dismissed as the applicant did not report the alleged harassment to management and there was no evidence of retaliation.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The applicant requested permission to audiotape the upcoming Case Resolution Conference hearing as an aide-memoire.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it would cause delay, formality, and potential discomfort for witnesses.

The Tribunal found that audiotaping is akin to taking notes and that concerns about misuse could be addressed through conditions.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing either party to audiotape the hearing subject to strict conditions regarding the use and dissemination of the recordings.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.

The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.