Sébastien Huard

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiffs $6,000 in damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $43,356.82.

The court considered the defendant's financial situation and the principle of proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $10,000.

The applicants, L’association pour l’intégration sociale d’Ottawa (AISO), Annik Méthot, and Marc Richer, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for defamation, punitive damages, and permanent injunctions against the respondent, Marlène Casimir.

Casimir, a former employee of AISO, was dismissed in 2015 and subsequently engaged in a sustained campaign of defamatory statements through public protests, flyers, emails, and Twitter, accusing the applicants of injustice, racism, harassment, and dishonesty.

The court found that Casimir's statements were defamatory and that her defense of justification lacked evidentiary support.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicants, awarding general and punitive damages, and a permanent injunction was issued to prevent further dissemination of defamatory content.

The applicant, a Muslim woman who wears a hijab, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after her employer informed her she could no longer wear her hijab while working at a Catholic school due to a contract change with the school board.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application to add sex as a ground of discrimination, amend her requested remedies, and add the Catholic school board as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted all three requests, finding the amendments were sought at an early stage and the school board was appropriately added as the entity responsible for the contract terms that led to the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the application as abandoned on its own initiative.

The Tribunal discovered that the applicant had indeed filed submissions in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, but due to an administrative error, they were not before the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the failure to consider the submissions outweighed the public interest in finality, set aside the previous decision, and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include new remedies and narrative allegations regarding her disability.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested production of the applicant's medical records from 2005 to 2011.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no sufficient prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for production, finding the medical records met the threshold of arguable relevance given the applicant's allegations regarding her disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted as its interests were at stake.

The applicant requested to defer the application indefinitely for personal reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding no other proceeding was dealing with the matter and it would not delay the process indefinitely.

The applicant, a cook at a bilingual daycare centre, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry and place of origin because she was regularly addressed in French and could not speak the language.

The respondents sought summary dismissal on the basis that language is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of fluency in French was not sufficiently linked to her ancestry or place of origin, and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought a one-month extension to file her Reply and requested that all further correspondence and proceedings be conducted exclusively in English.

The Tribunal granted a two-week extension for the Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request for English-only proceedings, noting its practice in bilingual applications is to communicate in both languages and accept written submissions in the language they are received.

The Tribunal confirmed it will provide interpretation services during mediation and hearings, but will not translate the respondent's French communications into English, respecting the respondent's rights under the French Language Services Act.