Paul Macchione

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to disqualify the defendants' counsel of record, alleging a conflict of interest and bad faith litigation.

At the hearing, the plaintiff acknowledged the relief was extreme and withdrew the disqualification request, seeking case management instead.

The court dismissed the disqualification motion, deferred the case management request pending a decision on a prior motion to strike, and awarded the defendants $10,000 in costs due to the plaintiff's problematic conduct in bringing an unfounded motion.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision.

The parties reached an agreement on costs, whereby the respondent, William O’Reilly, was ordered to pay $10,000 to the appellant, Tornado Medical Systems Inc., covering costs for both the appeal and the motion below.

No costs were payable by Dr. Jae Kim.

This appeal concerned the scope of common employer liability and director liability for unpaid wages under the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge had found Tornado Medical Systems, Inc. liable as a common employer and Jae Kim liable as a director for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed Tornado's appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in her articulation and application of the common employer doctrine by effectively finding liability based on corporate affiliation rather than an intention to create an employment relationship.

The Court dismissed Dr. Kim's appeal, but varied the judgment to make his director liability conditional on the statutory requirements of execution against the corporation being returned unsatisfied or corporate insolvency.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the plaintiff, Innocenzo Lippa, to set aside an administrative dismissal for delay, which was ultimately dismissed.

The plaintiff proposed $10,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant, Advanced Software Concepts Inc., sought $64,000 in substantial indemnity or $45,000 in partial indemnity.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff.

However, it determined that a significant partial indemnity award was justified given the importance of the motion to the defendant and the work involved.

The court found the defendant's requested costs excessive, particularly for factum and argument preparation, and applied a 50% reduction.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The court applied the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal order, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.

Despite the dismissal being due to inadvertence and the motion being brought promptly, the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the nearly five-year delay and could not rebut the strong presumption of prejudice to the defendant, particularly given the subjective nature of the evidence required for the wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on gender identity and marital status, claiming a co-worker spread gossip and shared personal information with the applicant's estranged husband.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations related to interpersonal conflict and had no connection to the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations that the co-worker repeatedly called the applicant a 'crazy bitch' or 'psycho bitch', as these could engage the grounds of disability or perceived disability and sex.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation or advances and sexual orientation.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The union grieved the discharge of a warehouse worker who was terminated for allegedly concealing and stealing alcohol from the employer's warehouse.

The employer relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the grievor repeatedly going behind a wall near his workstation, examining product, and hiding cases of alcohol behind boxes of twine.

The grievor denied the allegations and offered alternative explanations for his conduct.

The arbitrator found the grievor's explanations lacked credibility and were inconsistent with the objective evidence.

Concluding that the preponderance of circumstantial evidence clearly established the grievor stole and concealed the product, the arbitrator upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate his return to work following an eye injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The organizational respondent supported deferral to avoid duplication and inconsistent results.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims.

The grievor's employment was terminated for allegedly breaching the attendance provision of a Last Chance Agreement.

The union grieved the termination, asserting the breach was caused by a disability.

When the grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, the matter was adjourned.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to produce relevant medical records and any expert reports regarding the alleged disability prior to the rescheduled hearing.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that if the grievance succeeds, the grievor will not be entitled to compensation for the period of delay caused by her non-attendance, unless she establishes a valid reason for her absence.