Sarah Lapointe

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was banned from a grocery store because he is Jewish.

The respondents contended he was asked to leave for one day after opening a food package with a knife in the store.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and if it was filed in time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to link the respondents' actions to the applicant's religion, making the claim entirely speculative.

Furthermore, the application was filed approximately 30 months after the incident, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex regarding the calculation of her seniority hours, including during a pregnancy-related absence.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance proceeding was dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, and deferred the application to avoid conflicting findings of fact and duplication of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claims for fraud and conspiracy against a former employee and a supplier.

The employee had arranged for the supplier to provide gifts to employees in lieu of overtime pay, using falsified invoices to conceal the purchases from the corporate parent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the company suffered no actual damage and that the defendants lacked the requisite intent to cause harm.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge's comments during the hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.