Marc DiGirolamo

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following a request for a week off work due to a shoulder injury.

In this interim decision, both parties filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her family physician's clinical notes and records related to the injury for the six months prior to the request for time off.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the medical note provided by the applicant, and permitted the applicant's physician to testify by telephone.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and director of the respondent corporation, alleged discrimination based on family status regarding the scheduling of board meetings.

She sought to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the personal respondent made media statements about her attendance after she filed the application.

The respondents opposed the amendment and requested summary dismissal, arguing there was no employment relationship and no factual basis for the claims.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it related to post-application events and would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for summary dismissal, noting that the factual disputes required a full hearing on the merits.

Following a family law trial involving custody and a proposed relocation of a child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although both parties achieved partial success regarding custody, the respondent was unsuccessful in her request to relocate the child to Kingston.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that the applicant achieved greater success on the central issue and was entitled to costs.

The court also emphasized that costs must be awarded for specific stages of proceedings, referencing appellate authority.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their two-year-old son.

The mother also sought permission to relocate with the child from St. Catharines to Kingston to live with her new husband.

The court found that the child had thrived under a shared parenting arrangement in St. Catharines, where he had extensive extended family support.

Applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry, the court determined that relocating to Kingston would significantly disrupt the child's relationship with his father and extended family, and was not in his best interests.

The court ordered joint custody and a shared parenting schedule, and prohibited the relocation.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of the appellant's persistent and unwarranted pursuit of meritless legal proceedings.

The Court also dismissed an application to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the motion judge's refusal to permit cross-examination on an affidavit, noting the right to cross-examine is not absolute.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision to remove and replace one executor, Dorino Susin, with Amita Rahman, while declining to remove Fermino Susin.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasoning or conclusion, nor in the costs award to the trustee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion under rule 61.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the responding party's appeal for failure to post the $16,000 security for costs previously ordered.

The responding party resisted the motion, arguing he had sought a review of the order and that opposing counsel had agreed to delay the motion.

The court rejected both arguments, noting the responding party failed to perfect his motion for review within the required time and the written record contradicted the claim of an agreement.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.