Mary Jane Campigotto

The applicant alleged that the respondent golf club breached a previous human rights settlement and subjected her to reprisals by suspending and later expelling her husband from the club, which effectively ended her own membership privileges.

The Tribunal found that the club did not breach the settlement agreement, as it had complied with the clear and unambiguous terms regarding the adoption of a human rights policy and the review of board minutes.

The Tribunal dismissed the first reprisal allegation as an abuse of process and statutorily barred, given that the parties had settled a related civil action.

The Tribunal dismissed the second reprisal allegation on the merits, finding insufficient evidence that the club's decision to expel the applicant's husband for commencing a major civil suit against the club was an intentional retaliation for the applicant claiming her rights under the Code.

The Member, a registered practical nurse, pled guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted of robbery with violence.

The Member had stabbed a taxi driver while attempting to rob him to support an addiction.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and imposed terms and conditions requiring sessions with a nursing expert.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the final day of the hearing because her counsel had an important medical appointment scheduled for that day.

The respondent opposed the request, citing previous delays caused by the applicant's counsel in scheduling.

The Tribunal found that the medical appointment constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment, despite the frustration it would cause the respondent.

The request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing was granted.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be held in abeyance pending the resolution of a related civil matter following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, citing its duty to dispose of applications fairly and expeditiously, noting that any impact of the civil matter could be addressed through submissions later.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide her availability for an additional hearing day within one week, warning that her new reprisal allegation would be dismissed if she failed to comply.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to include a new reprisal allegation and sought a stay of the proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegation was within its jurisdiction despite the delay, and set a schedule for written submissions and a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters expeditiously.

The applicant requested to reschedule a hearing date, citing non-receipt of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and health issues causing fatigue, which led to inadvertently scheduling another matter on the same date.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant identified extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide further written submissions on the outstanding issue of whether the settlement of a related civil suit included a Release.