Michael Richards

The applicants, Spacebridge Inc. and David Gelerman, sought an order allowing Gelerman to complete his term as a director of Baylin Technologies Inc. and for the release of share certificates held in trust.

Baylin and 2385796 Ontario Inc. brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that Gelerman breached Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy and an order for his resignation.

The court found Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in unfair disregard of the applicants' reasonable expectations, as it deviated materially from TSX requirements and was designed to remove Gelerman.

The court also found that Baylin was not entitled to set-off the share certificates against indemnity claims, as the shares had already been "paid" by delivery to the trustee.

The application was allowed, setting aside Baylin's policy and ordering the release of shares, and the cross-application was dismissed.

The defendant in a construction dispute brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity resulting from the defendant's failure to pay for work performed.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide robust particularity of its financial situation to establish impecuniosity.

However, recognizing the merit of the plaintiff's claim and the need to balance financial risk against prejudice, the court ordered security for costs on a step-by-step basis, requiring the plaintiff to post $15,000 rather than the $116,571.12 requested by the defendant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services based on disability, age, and reprisal.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing that parts of the application were untimely and that other parts had been appropriately dealt with in prior Ministry of Labour and Small Claims Court proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents prior to April 26, 2009, finding they were untimely and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the respondents preventing the applicant from securing new employment, finding they were appropriately dealt with by the settlement of the applicant's 2009 Small Claims Actions.

The remaining allegations regarding accessible services and the banning of the applicant's personal care attendant were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and its representatives.

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding timeliness, multiple proceedings, and the naming of individual respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year prior to the application, finding no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations that had been resolved through a prior Small Claims Court settlement.

The remaining allegations were deferred pending the resolution of a related civil claim to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to proceed against them personally.

The applicant, a banquet server, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent employer failed to accommodate his physical and psychological disabilities following a workplace incident in September 2003.

The applicant also sought to amend his complaint to include allegations of harassment and a poisoned work environment prior to the incident.

The Tribunal denied the amendment, finding the prior allegations were beyond the scope of the original complaint.

On the accommodation issue, the Tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably in requiring psychiatric clearance before allowing the applicant to return to work, which the applicant failed to provide.

Furthermore, based on the permanent physical restrictions identified by the applicant's doctor, the employer could not accommodate the applicant without creating a new permanent position consisting of bundled tasks, which would constitute undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after she was not hired for a Garden Coordinator position by the respondent student council.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a standard practice of closing job applications at 2:00 p.m. during summer hours.

The applicant's first email application, sent before the deadline, was not received by the respondent, likely due to a technical issue or spam filter.

The only application received from the applicant arrived after 8:00 p.m.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not considered for the position because her application was late, not for any discriminatory reason, and dismissed the application.