William Hayter

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle for 11 weeks' salary, which the defendant did not accept.

Because the plaintiff ultimately recovered 4 months' salary, Rule 49.10(1)(a) applied.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total all-inclusive costs at $13,900.

The plaintiff employee was terminated without cause after 8.5 months of employment.

The defendant employer argued that a termination clause in the employment agreement limited the plaintiff's entitlements to the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found the termination clause ambiguous as it merely stated the employer would comply with the legislation without explicitly displacing common law rights.

Applying the principle of contra proferentem, the court interpreted the clause against the employer and awarded the plaintiff 4 months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice, plus one month of pension contributions.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as an abuse of process, alleging the self-represented applicant engaged in harassing conduct towards a former personal respondent at a public swearing-in ceremony.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that it lacks general injunctive powers to restrain conduct unconnected to the Tribunal's process.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to refrain from seeking a summons for the former personal respondent, as the respondent's counsel provided an undertaking to ensure the witness's attendance at the hearing.

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

During the hearing, the Tribunal made several interim rulings.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent as a party, finding no compelling reason to keep him named given the corporate respondent's presence.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the mediation-adjudication process.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural requests regarding summonses, file copies, and hearing accommodations, and warned the applicant that further discourteous conduct could result in the dismissal of her application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age after the respondent employer refused to re-employ her following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, deferred pending a WSIB objection, and that the personal respondent be removed.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the WSIB had not dealt with the substance of the application, deferral was not appropriate, and the personal respondent's separate response and representation warranted keeping him as a party at this stage.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a complaint of pregnancy discrimination against the Office of the Legislative Assembly to include an allegation of sexual harassment.

The respondents objected, arguing the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to amend the complaint and that doing so would be an abuse of process.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to determine whether a right was infringed, and that the new allegation arose from the same facts.

The Board also dismissed the respondents' motions to remove the Speaker of the House and the Board of Internal Economy as named respondents, and to dismiss the sick leave issues as moot.