Marianne Elizabeth Craig

The defendant, Karen Pacey, brought a motion to stay a proceeding initiated by Allied Accounting & Tax Services Limited and Allied Associates LLP, arguing that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA).

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality and non-competition provisions in both the SA and a Representative’s Contract, the latter lacking an arbitration clause.

The court found that the SA's arbitration clause was qualified by other provisions explicitly referring to "court" for equitable relief, indicating an exclusion for such disputes from arbitration.

Additionally, the court found that the defendant unduly delayed in bringing the motion for a stay, which would have been a separate ground for refusal.

The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed.

This case involves a property dispute between abutting neighbours concerning claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easement.

The applicants sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from trespassing and harassing them, and declarations regarding property rights.

The respondent asserted ownership by adverse possession and a right of way by prescriptive easement over portions of the applicants' land.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he failed to establish the necessary elements for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement, particularly given the conversion of lands to Land Titles, issues of permissive use, and unity of ownership.

A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicants' property.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant failed to file a request to proceed within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.4.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

As the applicant did not respond or request to proceed, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include allegations of reprisal, specifically a reassignment decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the vague allegations lacked particulars and the specific reassignment allegation was brought less than a month before the scheduled hearing, which would prejudice the respondent.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The union, OPSEU, sought intervenor status and supported the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status but denied the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal held that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' subject to reconsideration under its Rules, as it did not dispose of a central issue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision on its own motion, finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.

A costs decision following an application in bankruptcy proceedings concerning the continuing validity of an absolute discharge order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondents argued that the conduct of opposing counsel warranted costs in their favour or that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court rejected allegations that counsel had improperly accused opposing counsel of fraud on the court and found no basis to deny costs to the successful party.

Although the applicant was entitled to costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs given the novel circumstances and the sympathetic position of the respondent.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $14,000 on an all-inclusive basis.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of her gender discrimination complaint had already been dealt with in a prior grievance mediation-arbitration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's brief reasons in the grievance process did not specify whether the discrimination allegations were considered.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Penner, the Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to use the results of the prior proceeding to preclude the human rights claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress and did not understand its significance.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant had the opportunity to read the release and subsequently cashed the settlement cheques.

The Tribunal held that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.