Noelle Caloren

The respondents requested an order for the early production of documents relating to the applicant's mitigation efforts and Employment Insurance records.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to order production prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The matter was already scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay, where the applicant bears the onus of proving the delay was incurred in good faith.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The defendant opposed, arguing that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the contextual analysis of just cause for dismissal, the plaintiff's state of mind regarding the disclosure of confidential information to her lawyer, and the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient for a fair and just determination on the merits and that a full trial was necessary to resolve the complex factual and legal issues, including the employer's broader grounds for termination beyond those initially stated.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the corporate respondent, a federally-incorporated not-for-profit that collects and analyzes data about First Nations peoples.

The respondents argued the organization fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(6) (Census and Statistics) or s. 91(24) (Indians) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the organization's data analysis activities did not constitute First Nations governance, nor did they fall exclusively under the federal statistics power.

The Tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction to process the application.

Le requérant, un enseignant, a déposé une requête alléguant avoir été victime de harcèlement, de discrimination et de représailles fondés sur la race, la couleur, le lieu d'origine, la citoyenneté et la croyance de la part du conseil scolaire et de certains de ses employés.

Il prétendait être la cible d'un complot complexe orchestré par le directeur de l'école.

Le Tribunal a conclu que les allégations de complot n'avaient aucun fondement raisonnable et que le requérant interprétait à tort les interactions avec ses collègues et les élèves.

Bien qu'un commentaire raciste ait vraisemblablement été fait par le directeur à une représentante syndicale, ce commentaire n'a pas été adressé au requérant et ne constituait pas du harcèlement au sens du Code.

La requête a été rejetée.

The defendants, including a foreign embassy and its cultural bureau, sought leave to appeal a motion decision that permitted an employment-related breach of contract action to proceed despite claims of state immunity.

The motion judge had found the dispute fell within the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.

On the leave motion, the court considered whether conflicting authorities existed regarding the application of the commercial activity exception in employment contexts involving foreign states.

The court held that prior decisions demonstrated conflicting approaches to the issue and that the scope of state immunity in employment relationships with foreign states raised matters of significant importance to labour relations in Canada.

Leave to appeal was therefore granted, and the time for the defendants to deliver a statement of defence was extended pending the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for malicious prosecution and wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, finding they clearly showed the pathway to the result.

However, the Court agreed with the appellants that the trial judge erred by duplicating the award of 'Wallace' or 'Honda' damages and aggravated damages for malicious prosecution, as the same factors were used to justify both.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the $15,000 'Wallace' damages award, but otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that reversed a stay of proceedings entered by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a majority oral judgment, allowed the appeal and restored the stay.

The majority found that the trial judge carefully considered all relevant factors from Askov and Morin and made no error in exercising his discretion.

The dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in dealing with the period of delay and prejudice.