Michael Torrance

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in British Columbia, moved to Ontario and sought employment at an Ontario branch.

She alleged that a British Columbia-based employee defamed her to Ontario employees, resulting in the withdrawal of an employment offer and constructive dismissal.

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that British Columbia was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a presumptive connection to Ontario based on the tort of defamation occurring there, and held that the defendants failed to establish that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and breached the Human Rights Code.

The employee was terminated after a 28-month disability leave, despite providing a return-to-work plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the employment contract was not frustrated, the employer failed to accommodate the employee, and disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer were not deductible from the wrongful dismissal damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against Laird Constructors.

The Tribunal initially intended to defer the matter due to outstanding grievances.

Before the application was served, the applicant withdrew the grievances and requested to add AuRico Gold Inc. as a respondent.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the grievances were withdrawn, and accepted the amended application naming both Laird Constructors and AuRico Gold Inc. as respondents, directing them to file responses.

The applicant, who has ADHD, alleged that the Law School Admission Council discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability during the LSAT and by disciplining him for misconduct.

The applicant had requested extra time, a quiet room, and earplugs, but failed to provide a comprehensive achievement battery required by the respondent's guidelines before the strict deadline.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach the procedural duty to accommodate, as its requests for information were reasonable.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the substantive duty to accommodate, concluding that the applicant failed to reasonably cooperate in the accommodation process.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the discipline imposed for the applicant's disruptive behaviour during the test did not constitute discrimination.

The respondent requested an order permitting its witness to finish her testimony via teleconference because she lived in the United States and had a busy schedule.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the burden is on the party opposing an electronic hearing to show significant prejudice, and that the witness's credibility was not likely to be in issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple procedural requests from both parties.

The Tribunal struck remedies sought against former respondent law schools, denied the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing, and ordered the applicant to produce background documents relied upon by his proposed expert witness.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend his application to increase the damages claimed from $100,000 to $600,000, but denied his request to allow a second expert to testify via teleconference without first providing an expert report.