Sabatina Vassalli

The plaintiff, who was in arrears on her storage unit rental payments, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant storage company from auctioning the contents of her units.

She claimed the units contained evidence for unrelated personal injury actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the plaintiff was in breach of the rental agreement, which permitted the defendant to sell the contents upon default.

The court also found no irreparable harm, noting the plaintiff's refusal to take reasonable steps to preserve the alleged evidence, and held that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The defendant was permitted to auction the contents after 21 days.

The plaintiff, Michael Chalmers, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Airways Transit Service Limited, and its owner, Badder Capital Group Limited, for constructive dismissal.

Chalmers was laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was never recalled, despite other management staff returning to work.

Airways Transit argued that Ontario Regulation 228/20 (Infectious Diseases Emergency Leave) precluded a common law constructive dismissal claim.

The court rejected this argument, affirming that the ESA does not displace common law remedies.

The court found that Chalmers was constructively dismissed as of June 4, 2020, when Airways Transit effectively phased him out due to his high salary.

The court awarded Chalmers 25 months' reasonable notice, including a "COVID bump" and $30,000 in punitive damages for the employer's high-handed and misleading conduct, while declining aggravated/moral damages.

The plaintiff, a volunteer fire captain and administrative assistant, was terminated without cause by the municipality's CAO based on unfounded, sexist rumours and gossip.

The court found the termination was conducted in bad faith and was tainted by patent gender-based discrimination.

The CAO also made defamatory statements about the plaintiff to the municipal council, which lost the protection of qualified privilege due to malice.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' reasonable notice, $75,000 in moral damages, $35,000 for Human Rights Code violations, $20,000 for defamation, and $60,000 in punitive damages.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff sought disclosure of a recording of a closed municipal council meeting where her termination was discussed.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client, settlement, litigation, and confidential communications privilege.

Applying the Wigmore criteria, the court ordered partial disclosure.

The portion of the recording where the CAO justified the termination decision was ordered disclosed, as the benefit to the litigation outweighed the injury to the municipal relationship.

However, portions involving legal advice, anticipated negotiations, and council questions remained privileged.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a judgment awarding damages for a respiratory injury allegedly caused by being sprayed with a fire extinguisher.

The appeal raised issues regarding the admission of participant expert evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for not considering defence expert evidence on causation, and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient for failing to analyze the appellant's expert evidence on the diagnosis of Reactive Airways Disorder Syndrome (RADS) and for relying on an unqualified expert's incorrect summary of other specialists' views.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff, Deborah Tilli, brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a physical altercation with another student, Erica DiTomaso, at school.

The action also alleged negligent supervision against the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and its teachers.

The court found no liability on the part of the school board, determining that its supervision policy met the standard of a careful and prudent parent for 15-year-old students.

However, the court found Erica DiTomaso liable for battery, concluding that while the initial altercation was a "consent fight" DiTomaso used excessive and unreasonable force by banging the plaintiff's head on the floor.

Damages were mitigated by the plaintiff's provocation (name-calling), resulting in DiTomaso being 60% responsible and the plaintiff 40% responsible for her injuries.

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when an employee accidentally discharged a fire extinguisher in his face.

The defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff's subsequent severe respiratory issues were a natural progression of a pre-existing illness.

The court applied the 'but for' test and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the incident caused the plaintiff to develop Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with significant awards for past and future income loss, and subrogated claims.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in services related to autism treatment, the Tribunal considered whether certain respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal removed a personal respondent employee on consent after the employer assumed liability.

The Tribunal also removed Contact Niagara, finding it merely administered the independent review mechanism and had no control over the allegedly discriminatory data.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether the independent reviewer, Dr. Mason, should be removed pending further submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent related to his gambling addiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add and remove parties, and a request for anonymization.

The Tribunal removed the Ontario Charitable Gaming Association as a respondent on consent, and declined to add the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation as a respondent, finding it was not a proper party.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization for the interim decision, subject to future review, and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination regarding his discharge from IBI therapy provided by Kinark.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, finding no reasonable prospect of success for holding the funder vicariously liable.

The Tribunal ruled that historical treatment allegations were untimely for remedial purposes but could be introduced as context.

The Tribunal also held that the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) process, which upheld the clinical discharge decision, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, as it was a clinical review rather than a legal one.

The applicant was directed to clarify the specific allegations against the IRM reviewer and coordinator.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations leading up to her departure from the respondent inn.

The respondents did not oppose the amendment but requested a summary hearing, arguing the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application and denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing, finding that a hearing on the merits was necessary to resolve the issues.

The applicant, a child with autism and secondary disabilities, alleged discrimination in the provision of services after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The respondents, Kinark Child and Family Services and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry, finding no allegations of specific acts that disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of disability.

However, the Tribunal denied Kinark's request to dismiss, as the applicant alleged the testing used for discharge failed to accommodate her secondary disabilities, which required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and apraxia, alleged discrimination in services after being discharged from Intensive Behavioural Intervention therapy.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his apraxia during assessments, leading to his discharge for lack of progress.

The respondent argued the discharge was a clinical decision not subject to Code review.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that, assuming the allegations to be true, it was not plain and obvious that the respondent did not act contrary to the Code.

The application was allowed to proceed to the next stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after being evicted from various homeless shelters for using medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the provincial ministries that fund the shelters.

The applicant conceded the application against the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Minister of Community and Social Services, finding that the provision of funding alone was insufficient to establish a link between the Ministry and the alleged discriminatory acts of the shelters.