5 total
The court dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, finding the out-of-province plaintiff impecunious with a claim not plainly devoid of merit.
The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff in a defamation action, relying on Rule 56.01(a) due to the plaintiff's ordinary residence outside Ontario.
The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious, demonstrating his financial inability to post security, and that his claim was not plainly devoid of merit.
Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Reconsideration of dismissal for delay denied as evidence did not support claim of incorrect legal advice.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.
She argued that she relied on incorrect advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre regarding the deadline to file.
The Tribunal reviewed the intake notes from the Centre and found no evidence that she was given specific advice about a time limit.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's misunderstanding of the deadline did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay and denied the request for reconsideration.
Human rights application dismissed; alleged workplace sexual harassment found to be a consensual relationship.
The applicant, a hotel front desk agent, alleged she was sexually harassed by a lifeguard employed by the respondent and that the respondent failed to address her complaints.
The respondent maintained the relationship was consensual and that the applicant never complained of harassment.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies and a failure to participate in the respondent's investigation once a formal complaint was made.
The Tribunal concluded the relationship was consensual and dismissed the application.
Interim order granted compelling union to produce representative's notes and disability file in harassment claim.
The applicant alleged discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.
She sought an interim order for the production of documents from her union, including notes taken by her union representative and her disability benefits file.
The respondent took no position.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to determining what the applicant disclosed about the harassment and when.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide more detailed witness statements prior to the hearing.
Administrative ODSP interview statements admissible; no person in authority or Charter breach.
On a voir dire in a criminal prosecution, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to an Eligibility Review Officer during an investigation under the Disability Support Program Act were voluntary and whether their use would breach the accused’s section 7 Charter right against self‑incrimination.
The accused argued the officer was a person in authority and that the interview was effectively compelled.
The court held the officer was conducting an administrative eligibility investigation and was not acting on behalf of police or prosecuting authorities.
Applying the principles from R. v. Hodgson and R. v. Jarvis, the court found the officer was not a person in authority and the statements were voluntary.
The court further held that the investigation had not crossed the line into a penal inquiry and therefore no section 7 Charter breach occurred.
