2 total
The court struck a pseudolegal employment claim and ordered $10,000 in security for costs.
The defendant, Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. (DCC), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's (Sule Kisac) Amended Statement of Claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
DCC also sought to deny leave to amend or require the plaintiff to pay outstanding costs or post security for costs.
The court granted the motion to strike under rules 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11(b) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the claim lacked material facts and constituted an abuse of process.
The plaintiff was granted leave to re-amend her statement of claim, but only on the condition that she first post security for costs in the amount of $10,000, citing her history of non-compliance with court orders and vexatious conduct.
The court also fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $8,000.
Human rights application dismissed as untimely; applicant failed to establish good faith reason for delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate her return to work.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred before April 16, 2009, when the respondent offered suitable work, making the April 20, 2010 application untimely.
The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, rejecting arguments that her mental health condition, fear of reprisal, or pending grievance proceedings justified the delay.
The application was dismissed.
