Patricia Kennedy

The plaintiff brought a slip-and-fall action after falling on a steep municipal sidewalk covered by fresh snow over hidden ice beside a deteriorated pedestrian handrail.

Liability turned on whether the municipality's winter maintenance failures amounted to gross negligence under s. 44 of the Municipal Act and whether late notice was excused.

The court found prolonged failures to clear, salt, or sand a busy steep sidewalk, combined with the unusable handrail, constituted gross negligence.

The plaintiff was found careful, not contributorily negligent, and her delayed notice was excused because she reasonably waited to see whether her symptoms would resolve and the municipality suffered no prejudice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his allegations of age discrimination regarding the operation of the employer's health care benefit and life insurance plans after he turned 65.

The applicant argued that as a police officer, the Employment Standards Act did not apply to him, and therefore the exemption in section 25 of the Human Rights Code should not apply.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision's interpretation of section 25 of the Code was correct and that importing the ESA's exclusions into the Code would lead to incongruous results.

The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sued a former producer for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference, claiming damages for commissions earned by the defendant after she joined a competing firm.

The defendant counterclaimed for reimbursement of unpaid premiums that the plaintiff had deducted from her earnings.

The court found that the plaintiff's unilateral imposition of a charge-back policy for unpaid premiums was a breach of contract, entitling the defendant to reimbursement.

However, the court also found that the defendant breached a valid non-solicitation clause by accepting business from the plaintiff's former clients, requiring her to disgorge the commissions earned.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding the defendant was not a key employee.