Samantha Marie Crumb

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to call into a telephone conference hearing.

The applicant submitted that she was unable to participate due to health problems and disabilities that impaired her concentration and ability to read.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant intended to participate but was prevented by her disability, granted the reconsideration, and directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer, Staples Canada Inc. The plaintiff, terminated without cause after almost five years of employment, sought nine months' compensation in lieu of notice.

The court found that the plaintiff made exemplary efforts to mitigate her damages and determined a reasonable notice period of six months, awarding her $34,171.92.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The Notice of Hearing had been sent months prior with no indication it was not received.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, leading to this costs endorsement.

The defendants, Kiewit Alarie A Partnership and Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, sought costs.

The court awarded costs of $4,000 to KAP and $2,000 to EPSCA, all inclusive, payable within 30 days.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments for no costs or delayed payment, finding the underlying motion to be without legal foundation, premature, and an abuse of process, and that it unnecessarily delayed proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the production of documents classified as controlled goods under the Defence Production Act.

Neither the parties' counsel nor a key witness were authorized to access the documents under the Controlled Goods Regulations.

Both parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal found that the inability to review arguably relevant documents constituted exceptional circumstances and granted the adjournment.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to strike supplementary affidavit evidence filed by the Responding Defendants in their summary judgment motion.

The Plaintiff argued that the supplementary affidavits were improper under the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 39.02, as they were filed after a Rule 39.03 examination had commenced.

The Defendants contended that Rule 39.02 was not violated because the affidavits were not filed after a cross-examination on the Plaintiff's affidavit, and a Rule 39.03 examination is a form of primary evidence to which reply affidavits are permissible.

The court accepted the Defendants' position, finding that a Rule 39.03 examination is distinct from a Rule 39.02 cross-examination and does not preclude the filing of reply affidavits.

The Plaintiff's motion was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the applicant to undergo a physiotherapist assessment to determine if she could perform the essential duties of her position, and if not, she would resign in exchange for general damages.

The physiotherapist concluded she could not perform the duties, but the applicant refused to resign, claiming the assessment was inaccurate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had not breached the settlement and that the applicant was simply dissatisfied with the outcome of the agreed-upon assessment process.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a civil proceeding.

The civil claim was administratively dismissed as abandoned in February 2014, but the applicant did not file a request to reactivate the Tribunal application until February 2015, well beyond the 60-day limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the nine-month delay, noting inconsistencies in his explanations and a lack of diligence in ascertaining the status of his civil claim.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin by her manager.

The corporate respondent requested to be added as a party and to have the manager removed as a personal respondent.

The union requested intervenor status, and the respondents requested deferral of the application pending an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal added the corporate respondent and the union, but declined to remove the personal respondent, finding his conduct central to the allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the overlap of facts and issues.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding whether her injury was work-related.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the cause of the applicant's injury had limited relevance to the issues under the Human Rights Code, which requires employers to accommodate disability-related needs regardless of the cause of the disability.

The applicant sought to reactivate his deferred human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested the applicant's consent to release his WSIB file before filing their Response.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and denied the respondents' request for advance disclosure, finding that the application contained sufficient information for the respondents to file a Response without the WSIB file.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal.

The applicant alleged a failure to accommodate his disability-related needs when he sought to return to work with restrictions.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.