Rebecca Louise Bush

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $1,000 within the agreed four-week period.

The respondents missed the deadline by approximately one week due to their counsel's unexpected medical leave, but promptly offered to deliver the funds upon realizing the error.

The applicant refused the funds and sought to have the settlement rescinded.

The Tribunal found the delay was a trivial breach caused by inadvertence that resulted in no significant harm to the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the settlement and ordered the respondents to pay the original $1,000 settlement amount.

The complainant and the Commission brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add further officers as personal respondents.

Following discussions, the Chief of Police undertook to accept liability in the event any liability is found against the named or proposed officers.

Consequently, the parties agreed to withdraw the request, remove all named individual respondents, and add the Chief of Police as a respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and unprovoked physical assault by police.

He subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for assault, battery, and Charter violations, but not for Code infringements.

The Tribunal held that the application was not barred by s. 34(11) of the Code because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police.

She argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the exact words spoken, the police's duty to get her version of events, and the assessment of reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the charge, noting it fairly focused the jury on whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to deny them costs based solely on the appellant's impecuniosity.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that impecuniosity cannot be the only factor considered, and awarded the respondents $40,000 in trial costs and $7,500 for the appeal.

The appellant employee suffered a mental breakdown and sued her employer for negligent infliction of mental suffering and negligent supervision, following a period of workplace restructuring, denial of a promotion, and disciplinary actions for absenteeism.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the employer's actions were reasonable responses to declining performance and that the employer was unaware of the employee's mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if a free-standing tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering exists in the employment context, the trial judge's factual findings precluded liability.