Philip D. Isbister

The complainant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement from a previous sex discrimination complaint by failing to hire her as a Traffic By-Law Officer.

She also alleged that the hiring process constituted a reprisal and that psychological tests administered during the process contained discriminatory questions regarding family status and handicap.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the successful candidate was more qualified, that the hiring process was objective and not a reprisal, and that the psychological tests and interview questions did not infringe the Human Rights Code.

The testator left an estate consisting largely of real property.

The residue was to be kept invested, with the net income paid to his widow for life, and the remainder to his children.

The widow, receiving little income from the real property, sought a direction that the executors convert the real property, relying on the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth, which requires trustees to convert wasting or unproductive personalty to deal even-handedly between life tenants and remaindermen, does not apply to real property.

The Court declined to extend the rule to real property, stating that such a change should be left to the legislature.

The widow's claim for notional income was also dismissed as there was no duty to convert the realty.