Richard J. Mazar

The complainant, a used car salesman, alleged that he was subjected to sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment by a co-worker who frequently exposed himself, made lewd comments, and watched loud pornography in the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's conduct constituted sexual harassment and that management condoned the behaviour, failing to take the complainant's concerns seriously.

The Tribunal also found that the complainant's subsequent dismissal and a false police report filed by the employer alleging vehicle theft constituted reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The Tribunal awarded $50,000 in total damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to implement human rights policies and training.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to stay or dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, arguing that the complainant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal constituted an abuse of process.

The respondents also sought the recusal of the adjudicator for alleged bias and requested to examine the complainant and his counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal denied the request to examine counsel, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion to stay or dismiss the complaint, finding that the human rights and civil proceedings involved different parties, legal issues, and remedies, and that the respondents failed to demonstrate undue prejudice or bad faith that would warrant an extraordinary stay of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of damages for loss of profit.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's admission of business records under section 35 of the Evidence Act, the weighing of expert opinion, or the damage calculation itself.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,500.

The appellants appealed paragraph one of the trial judge's order, arguing that there was no settlement because the wrongful dismissal claim component had not been resolved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parties agreed the respondent would be paid 16% of the company's value, and the business valuators would account for the contingency of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The unresolved claim afforded no basis to set aside the agreement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding corporate breach of a distribution agreement, personal liability of a director, and awarding damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the finding of personal liability against the director as there was no evidence he acted outside his authority or for his own benefit.

The court also set aside the damages award, finding the trial judge erred in awarding mitigation costs beyond the notice period and relying on unproven financial statements.

The matter of damages and trial costs was remitted for a new trial.

The appellants, subcontractors on a school construction project, appealed a trial judgment limiting their construction lien recovery to the general contractor's 10 per cent statutory holdback.

The general contractor had posted a lien bond to vacate one of the liens before the primary subcontractor abandoned the project.

The appellants argued that posting security made the full bond amount available to all lien claimants in addition to the statutory holdback, relying on previous case law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that posting security under section 44 of the Construction Lien Act does not enlarge a contractor's liability beyond the statutory holdback and proper set-offs.

The court explicitly rejected the prior ruling in Francon, confirming that a contractor's liability to lien claimants is restricted to the amount fixed by the Act.