Paul Marshall

Following a 20-day hearing where the Applicants successfully obtained a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, both parties applied for costs.

The Applicants claimed over $1.2 million, alleging the Respondent acted in bad faith, including failing to disclose the sale of the digester operation.

The Respondent claimed up to $44,880, alleging the Applicants engaged in unreasonable conduct and caused unnecessary delays.

The Board found that while the Respondent acted in bad faith by failing to disclose the sale, the Applicants' counsel also acted unreasonably by showing a lack of respect, failing to comply with directions, and prolonging the hearing.

Concluding that neither party came with clean hands, the Board exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The appellant sought to set aside a decision by Justice Pardu refusing to extend the time to appeal a Superior Court decision.

Justice Pardu had found that the appellant demonstrated intention to appeal within the prescribed time and accepted his explanation for the delay, with no prejudice to the respondent.

However, she dismissed the motion on the sole ground that the grounds of appeal were devoid of merit.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant's claims were directly related to his employment and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the settlement agreement.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single dwelling.

The Hearing Officer addressed preliminary issues regarding notice of the application and decision, and established a procedural schedule for a two-day hearing to commence on June 26, 2019.

This costs endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion by the City of Mississauga to amend its Statement of Defence and cross-motions by the plaintiff, Amanda Martin.

The City was entirely successful on its motion and substantially successful against the plaintiff's cross-motions.

The court considered the principles governing costs awards, including the five purposes of costs rules and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the plaintiff's arguments for divided success and an offer to settle, the court found the City largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court reduced the City's claimed costs, fixing them at $9,000, payable by the plaintiff within 90 days, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the length and costs of the proceedings.

The applicants, neighbours of a greenhouse operation, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of severe odour and fly disturbances caused by an anaerobic digester on the respondent's property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances and that the digester operation fundamentally changed the character of the rural neighbourhood.

Applying the test from Pyke v. Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., the Board concluded that the digester was not a normal farm practice in these circumstances.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease the digester operation and decommission the facility.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the City of Mississauga sought leave to amend its Statement of Defence to withdraw an allegation of just cause termination.

The Plaintiff opposed, arguing this constituted a withdrawal of admissions under Rule 51.05, and brought a cross-motion to compel production of an investigation report and permit discovery on the cause allegation.

The court granted the City's motion, finding that withdrawing a just cause allegation was an amendment under Rule 26.01, not a withdrawal of an admission.

The Plaintiff's cross-motion to compel production and discovery was largely dismissed as premature, but the City was ordered to provide its position on the report's production within 7 days and serve its Affidavit of Documents within 45 days.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision made by the Normal Farm Practices and Protection Board regarding its internal processes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interim orders is only available in exceptional circumstances to prevent fragmentation and piecemeal proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the board's final decision.

Costs were awarded to the respondent receiver in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The applicant, a former school bus driver, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin, claiming he was terminated after a student's mother made racist comments and complained to the transportation consortium.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing the termination was due to serious breaches of service standards and that they were unaware of the alleged racist comments.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application entirely, finding that the allegations of discrimination required a full hearing to determine if the respondents were aware of the comments and if racial stereotyping was a factor in the dismissal.

The application will proceed on discrete issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged that the adjudicator was biased, acted improperly during the hearing, and that another Vice-chair should have heard the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts or evidence, and concluding that the applicant's bald assertions of bias did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was an attempt to re-argue the case based on disagreement with the outcome.

The applicant, a Muslim woman who wears a hijab, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after her employer informed her she could no longer wear her hijab while working at a Catholic school due to a contract change with the school board.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application to add sex as a ground of discrimination, amend her requested remedies, and add the Catholic school board as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted all three requests, finding the amendments were sought at an early stage and the school board was appropriately added as the entity responsible for the contract terms that led to the alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his three sons against the respondent school board and two individuals, alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant also requested that the adjudicator recuse herself for bias, which was denied as the allegations were unfounded.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to suspensions, reprisals, and an alleged conspiracy to prevent the sons from enrolling in other schools, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success or were untimely.

Only the allegation that the respondents failed to accommodate one son's disability by not providing home schooling was allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a 10-year-old student, alleged sex discrimination by the respondent school board, claiming the school failed to appropriately address assaults by a male student who targeted girls.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 19A.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the nature of the alleged facts might require the respondent to produce evidence.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability during a math exam.

In a Request for an Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought disclosure of a video relating to an alleged bullying incident on May 5, 2015.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the video was not relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of a grievance process initiated by the intervener union.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the application and the grievance involved overlapping facts and allegations.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking to permit the student, T.A., to return to the respondent school effective September 1, 2015.

The student had not been enrolled at the school since October 14, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant waited over ten months to file the application, just one week before the start of classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the urgency was self-created and it was not appropriate to grant the extraordinary relief of an interim remedy in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a civil statement of claim had been issued against the same respondents.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding to avoid contrary findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisals by the Ontario College of Teachers and one of its employees.

He subsequently sought to add his former employer, a school board, and his union as respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the request to add the school board because the applicant had signed a full and final release and the allegations were out of time.

The request to add the union was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Finally, the application against the College was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to provide evidence that the College's actions were motivated by an intent to reprise against him for claiming his rights under the Code.

The applicants requested an interim remedy to reinstate T.B. in a school belonging to a different school board.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request because the remedy was sought against a school board that was not a party to the application.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for being alone in a car with a female student on an isolated road, a penalty hearing was held for the member.

The College sought a reprimand, a boundaries course, a suspension, and publication with the member's name, while the member opposed the suspension and publication of his name.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a boundaries course, a one-month suspension, and publication of the decision including the member's name, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member made culturally inappropriate and demeaning comments to students, made derogatory remarks about colleagues, left a physical education class unsupervised, and breached a directive to have no contact with the school community while assigned to home duties.

The member pled no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on resolution, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, the completion of courses in classroom management and cultural sensitivity, and publication of the decision with the member's name.