Robert Roger Badi Coulombe

The appellant, a care home operator, unlawfully evicted a non-verbal adult with severe autism without following the procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's reinstatement.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Board lacked statutory authority to order reinstatement under s. 31(1)(f) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that a broad interpretation of the Act's remedial provisions permitted the Board to order reinstatement to protect vulnerable tenants from unlawful eviction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination sought an interim order for the production of the respondent's audited financial statements and other internal documents.

The respondent opposed, citing confidentiality and lack of relevance, arguing the termination was due to economic restructuring.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce financial statements from 2012 to 2015, finding them arguably relevant to the respondent's defence of economic restructuring, and directed compliance with prior disclosure orders.

The applicant requested to amend the remedy sought in her human rights application, which the Tribunal granted as the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel and potential witnesses might be subpoenaed for a Superior Court trial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the potential scheduling conflict was tentative and did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to comply with their overdue disclosure obligations.

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 parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The respondent claimed compensatory spousal support, arguing he suffered economic disadvantage while the applicant pursued her master's degree, which led to a significant increase in her income.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no economic disadvantage to the respondent.

The court also resolved disputes over the children's primary residence for child support purposes, ordered pro-rata sharing of section 7 extraordinary expenses, and determined the equalization of net family property, noting the respondent's failure to disclose certain assets.

The father brought a motion seeking joint custody of the parties’ children on a week-on, week-off basis.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing arrangement under which the children primarily resided with her and had daily contact with the father.

The court reviewed the parties’ post‑separation parenting history and found that the father had played a substantial caregiving role for approximately 18 months before the mother unilaterally reduced his weekday time.

The court concluded that the father’s proposed parenting schedule would provide greater stability and reduce daily transitions for the children, particularly in light of behavioural and adjustment concerns affecting one child.

An interim joint custody order with an alternating week schedule was granted.