Robert Dunford

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, was granted summary judgment against the defendants for nonpayment of mortgage loans and a credit card debt.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $73,882.20.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs, citing the "unfair or unduly onerous" exception.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity based on the lending documents but reduced the claimed amount to $40,000 plus HST, considering the stage of the proceedings and the work involved.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for nonpayment of mortgage loans and a credit card debt.

The defendants did not dispute the amounts owing but alleged they were encouraged to borrow the funds by unnamed financial advisors to make unsuccessful investments.

The court found the defendants' evidence lacked specific facts and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the outstanding debts and possession of the mortgaged property.

The applicant purchased the assets of the respondent but failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements under the Bulk Sales Act.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file the required affidavit under s. 11(3) of the Act.

The intervenor opposed the application, arguing that the applicant wilfully disregarded its statutory obligations.

The court established a five-factor test for granting an extension and, due to a lack of prior guiding case law, granted the extension.

However, the court ordered that the extension be without prejudice to the intervenor's separate action to void the sale.

The applicant, a black man from Sudan, was suspended for three days following a heated workplace altercation with a co-worker.

As a condition of returning to work, the employer required both employees to attend anger management counselling through the Employee Assistance Program.

The applicant refused, alleging the requirement was based on a racial stereotype that black men have a propensity for anger and violence, and his employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the employer's decision was influenced by the applicant's race or a perceived disability, but rather was a standard response under its strict workplace violence policy.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race by terminating his employment based on a stereotype, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the significant impact of the termination and the harmful nature of the stereotype applied.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to reasonably mitigate his losses by delaying his job search and making minimal efforts.

Consequently, the Tribunal limited the award for lost wages and benefits to a three-month period, totaling $10,517.68.

The applicant, a Black man, was suspended for three days following a workplace dispute where he became visibly angry and disrespectful towards his supervisor.

The employer subsequently required him to attend anger management counselling as a condition of his continued employment.

When the applicant refused, his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's behaviour warranted discipline, the requirement for anger management counselling was an over-reaction influenced by the discriminatory stereotype that Black men have a propensity towards violence.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer subjected the applicant to a heightened degree of scrutiny, thereby contravening section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a former machine operator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

He claimed that the plant manager used racist slurs, that the employer's response to his workplace safety complaints and subsequent discipline were discriminatory, and that the employer failed to investigate his allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the allegations of racist name-calling to be untrue.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the employer's response to the safety dispute or the discipline imposed was discriminatory, and concluded that the applicant's statements during the safety dispute did not trigger a duty to investigate further.