Nadia Halum Arauz

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the Plaintiff sought a further affidavit of documents and a litigation timetable, while the Defendant brought a cross-motion for a sealing order or, alternatively, an order requiring the Plaintiff to provide notice before filing confidential materials.

The court denied the sealing order as premature but granted the Defendant's request for 30 days' notice before the Plaintiff files any designated confidential documents.

The Plaintiff's request for unredacted documents was granted, but broad requests for other staff's performance reviews and hours were denied.

The court declined to impose a litigation timetable, finding the Plaintiff largely responsible for delays.

Costs were awarded to the Defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of non-party records from the plaintiff's former employer.

The defendant alleged after-acquired cause for the plaintiff's termination, claiming he used confidential information during his recruitment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendant failed to meet the test for production.

The court granted the motion, finding the records were relevant to the pleadings and it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to discovery or trial without them.