Saron Gebresellassi

The appellant tenant appealed a decision declaring its commercial lease properly terminated and directing a writ of possession.

The tenant argued the landlord's notice of termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act and that the landlord failed to provide 30 days' notice of re-entry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 18(1) of the Act, the landlord had the right to re-enter without formal demand because the tenant had been in arrears of rent for more than 15 days.

The court also upheld findings that the tenant's failure to pay deposits under the related Agreement of Purchase and Sale constituted a material breach.

The applicant sought a declaration that two contingency fee retainer agreements signed with the respondent law firm were non-compliant with the Solicitors Act and Regulation 195/04.

The court found numerous significant deficiencies in the retainers, including the failure to state that the client retains the right to make critical decisions and the failure to provide an example of how the fee is calculated.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court declared the retainer agreements void and directed an assessment of the respondent's account.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination complaint due to delay and denying reconsideration.

The applicant, who was on sick leave for breast cancer, received a notice in 2014 that her position was eliminated and she would be laid off upon her return to work.

She filed her HRTO application in 2018.

The HRTO found the triggering event for the one-year limitation period was the 2014 notice, not her future return to work.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against her union due to unreasonable delay.

The applicant had delayed filing her complaint for 11.5 months after learning the union would not pursue her grievance to arbitration.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision to dismiss the complaint summarily was reasonable, as the delay was excessive, inadequately explained, and prejudicial to the union.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony to be contradictory and lacking credibility, noting discrepancies regarding her medical treatment timeline, pre-existing injuries, and simultaneous receipt of Employment Insurance and income replacement benefits.

Relying on the medical evidence, including the insurer's orthopedic expert who found the applicant's pain was related to degenerative issues rather than the accident, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to work.

All claims for benefits, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination when she was denied the ability to sit and drink her coffee at a Bagel World franchise.

The franchisee subsequently went bankrupt, and the applicant sought to hold the franchisor vicariously liable.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the franchisor had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the franchise agreement and evidence demonstrated the franchisor did not exercise substantial control over the day-to-day operations or employees of the franchisee, the Tribunal concluded the franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application against the franchisor was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational respondent and five personal respondents.

The organizational respondent requested to defer the application pending the completion of a related union grievance and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the grievance and the application.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud criteria, as the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability and there were no allegations of individual harassment.