Shana Lee French

Following a trial where both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had made two global offers to settle that were not accepted by the defendant.

Although the offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, the court considered them under Rule 57.01 and section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendant should have accepted the reasonable offers and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $80,657.12 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This case involved an action for damages by the plaintiffs (2551965 Ontario Ltd. and Cabin Country Realty Ltd.) for alleged breach of restrictive covenants and interference in contractual/economic relations, and a counterclaim by the defendant (Harold Warkentin) for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer had just cause to dismiss the defendant due to willful misconduct, including verbal threats, unprofessional internal notes, and a conflict of interest regarding a client transaction.

Consequently, the defendant's counterclaim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The court also found the restrictive covenants in the share purchase agreement to be unenforceable against the defendant post-termination, as the geographic scope ("Northwestern Ontario") was overly broad and unnecessary to protect the plaintiffs' legitimate business interests.

As a result, the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to these covenants was also dismissed.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on disability after being removed from a transitional work program.

During the hearing, the Tribunal denied a request to reconsider an interim decision that disqualified the applicant's representative, an unlicensed paralegal, from acting as an unpaid friend.

On the final day of the hearing, the applicant requested the adjudicator recuse himself for bias, alleging unfairness in cross-examination rulings.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding that routine case management and evidentiary rulings do not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Following this ruling, the applicant abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal subsequently dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following her termination from employment.

The application was filed almost four years after the termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on the date of termination, and that the applicant's reliance on an ongoing union grievance did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant's representative, Harry Kopyto, was recently denied a paralegal license by the Law Society Tribunal.

He sought to continue representing the applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the 'unpaid friend' exemption.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Kopyto did not meet the cumulative criteria for the exemption, as he had initially been retained in a professional capacity and had a history of providing legal services for compensation.

The Tribunal ordered that Mr. Kopyto be removed as the applicant's representative.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on medical grounds and to allow time to retain legal representation.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to provide specific medical information to support the request, which she failed to do.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel since her former representative withdrew.

The adjournment request was denied.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process was also denied, as they had not established sufficient prejudice or unfairness at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal previously adjourned the hearing because the applicant had filed a workplace grievance positioned for arbitration, and sought submissions on whether to defer the application.

The Tribunal found that the grievance concerned the termination of the applicant's employment over two years after the human rights application was filed, and did not deal with the same facts and issues.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate and directed that the hearing be rescheduled.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove four individual managerial employees as personal respondents to a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for their actions and capable of remedying any breach.

The Tribunal reviewed the jurisprudence on removing personal respondents, including the Divisional Court's decision in OHRC v. Farris, and determined that a cautious approach is warranted at the pre-hearing stage.

Finding that the allegations could support a finding of personal liability under the Code, particularly regarding harassment where vicarious liability does not apply, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents without prejudice.

The respondents, the City of Mississauga and Dara Marcoccia, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates with the applicant's consent, after the applicant's representative withdrew less than a month before the hearing.

The individual respondent, Rohan Abbey, opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the withdrawal of the representative constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing workplace grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal culminating in the termination of her employment.

The respondents sought dismissal based on a release executed by the applicant.

The applicant argued the release was conditional and unenforceable, noting she had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal where the release's status would be determined.

Both parties agreed deferral was appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the court in the civil action makes a final determination regarding the enforceability of the release.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of race, colour, and reprisal.

He claimed a co-worker used a racial slur, that he was subjected to rumour mongering about killing drug dealers, that offensive nicknames were used in the workplace, and that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising these issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of the racial slur and rumour mongering, finding the respondents' evidence credible and the applicant's allegations unproven.

The Tribunal also found the termination was not a reprisal but resulted from an irrevocably broken employment relationship.

Finally, while noting some concerning workplace joking and nicknames, the Tribunal found it did not amount to harassment under the Code as the conduct stopped when the applicant objected, and the environment was not poisoned.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.