Matthew J.G. Curtis

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a wrongful dismissal action, where the parties agreed to proceed by way of a two-day summary trial.

The court established a detailed timetable for the exchange of affidavits of documents, completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, and delivery of witness affidavits and factums.

A pre-trial/settlement conference was also scheduled, and the presiding judge remained seized of the matter for the pre-trial and any issues arising from the timetable.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application alleging workplace reprisal, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance process.

The grievance process concluded in April 2016, but the applicant did not request re-activation until April 2017, well beyond the 60-day deadline under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal denied the request and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good explanation for his failure to inquire about the status of his grievance and that the lengthy delay would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a WSIAT appeal.

The respondent opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the WSIAT decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the WSIAT appeal had concluded, and ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as abandoned or for abuse of process, arguing that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to produce documents and an IME report.

The applicant, who was self-represented, claimed she did not have the documents as they were with the WSIB and cited health issues.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request, finding that the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process and that she had not abandoned the application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's failure to disclose evidence could be addressed by limiting the evidence she is permitted to rely on at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of a disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing WSIB proceeding regarding the same injury.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the clear overlap in facts and issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned after the self-represented applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and comply with pre-hearing disclosure directions.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending her WSIB claims.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that while the applicant's conduct was concerning, she appeared genuinely confused about the process rather than intentionally flouting the rules.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, as there was no active WSIB proceeding to defer to, and issued peremptory directions for the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin following his termination for eating unauthorized food during his shift.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through the grievance process, which ended when the union decided not to proceed to arbitration after Step 2.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a grievance process prior to arbitration before a neutral third party does not constitute a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application to clarify his allegations and seek monetary compensation, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $155,295.40, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause because the interlocutory order did not determine the ultimate merits.

The court held that the defendants' conduct was not so egregious as to justify elevated costs and emphasized that the enforceability of the non-competition clause and the existence of damage remained to be tried.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause in the amount of $75,000.