Nicholas Saint-Martin

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a seasonal retail position.

The applicant claimed she was treated coldly during a group interview compared to non-white candidates.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support an inference of discrimination, noting the applicant's own admission that her cellphone rang and she answered it during the interview, which the respondent cited as the non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her.

The application was dismissed.

In a class proceeding relating to alleged misconduct involving a public corporation, the court addressed a correction to a prior costs decision.

The earlier reasons contained a factual error regarding the quantum of costs awarded to certain defendants on a motion to amend.

On consent of the parties, the court corrected the error and revised the amount payable.

The corrected award granted the defendants all‑inclusive costs for the amendments motion in a lower amount than originally stated.

Following an earlier decision dismissing a motion by the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim and rejecting most of their requested changes to a discovery plan in a securities class action, the court addressed costs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for both the amendments motion and the discovery plan motion.

The court held that the amendments motion was a significant and high-stakes procedural dispute in complex class proceedings and that the defendants’ claimed costs were within the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ demands regarding the discovery plan were disproportionate and that the defendants were the successful party on that motion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants both for the amendments motion and, in any event of the cause, for the discovery plan motion.