Russell MacCrimmon

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, the defendant sought costs of $9,618.18.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, responded with pseudolegal OPCA arguments rather than addressing the costs factors.

The court noted the defendant's costs were reasonable but reduced the amount slightly to be scrupulously fair.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount of $7,264.00 on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the CEO of her employer, a federal Crown corporation, in his personal capacity over a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The defendant moved to strike the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff could not sue the CEO individually for breach of an employment contract and noted the plaintiff's reliance on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) concepts.

The court granted the motion, struck the statement of claim, and stayed the action, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to pursue a claim against her actual employer.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in her duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, not one, and alleged the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors, failed to apply the Consumer Protection Act, and denied her a fair trial as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the quote was for a single furnace was supported by evidence.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of trial fairness, noting that while the trial judge could have managed the process better, the appellant was able to present her case.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in a duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, while the respondent maintained it was for one and that the parties agreed to double the price for two units.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the quote was for a single furnace.

The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding trial unfairness and bias, concluding the appeal should be dismissed.

The applicant, a bus driver for OC Transpo, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his attempts to secure accommodation through the City of Ottawa's priority placement program.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking and its labour relations are governed by federal legislation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rights to priority placement were derived from his collective agreement and his ongoing status as an OC Transpo employee.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation.

The respondent and the intervenor union argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a Memorandum of Agreement containing a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he signed it under extreme duress and lacked the mental capacity to understand its consequences.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood he was signing a settlement agreement that severed his employment, and that the pressure he faced did not amount to legal duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation.

The union requested that the application against it be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union failed to file further grievances on his behalf and pressured him to sign a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the union's conduct to a protected ground.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the union was liable under the Renaud test, as there was no discriminatory rule and the union did not impede employer accommodation.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Ottawa, relating to his placement on a Priority Placement Program after being employed as a bus driver with OC Transpo.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing OC Transpo is a federally-regulated enterprise.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and document production.

The plaintiffs, Ian and Kent Hawkins, brought a motion to remove the estate trustees (their brother Carl and brother-in-law Garry) appointed under their late father's will, alleging a conflict of interest due to ongoing litigation over the estate's primary assets.

The plaintiffs also sought to prevent the trustees from controlling access to the deceased's former solicitor's file.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the heavy onus to remove estate trustees was not met, as there was no evidence that the trustees' continuation in office would inevitably impede the proper administration of the estate.

The court also held that concerns regarding access to the solicitor's file could be adequately addressed through the ordinary rules of civil procedure, though the court ordered the action to be case managed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages and costs to the respondents for breach of a contract to purchase bakery equipment.

The trial judge found the appellants waived conditions in the offer to purchase by signing a lease, did not repudiate the offer, and that the individual appellant was personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding it was within the trial judge's discretion and not disproportionate.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that although the request for dismissal should have been made on notice, the outcome would not have been different.

The appellant failed to comply with two orders designed to expedite the case and failed to adequately explain the delay.

The respondent suffered prejudice due to a certificate of pending litigation and subsequent orders.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.