S. John Page

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

The respondents raised the issue of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that a later conversation about food preferences constituted a more recent incident of discrimination, and alternatively, that the delay was incurred in good faith because he was attempting to resolve the matter with his former employer.

The Tribunal found that the later conversation was not discriminatory and that ongoing settlement discussions did not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the confidentiality provision of their human rights settlement by disclosing its terms to her former husband.

The applicant argued that her former husband could only have learned about the settlement and its monetary compensation from the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent disclosed the terms of the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the confidentiality provision only prohibited disclosing the terms of the settlement, not the fact that a settlement occurred, and the former husband's allegation of monetary compensation could have been an assumption rather than based on disclosed information.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university committee's decision to involuntarily withdraw him from a radiological technology program following a patient safety incident during a clinical practicum.

The applicant argued he was denied natural justice because the primary witness against him submitted a written statement and was not cross-examined.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's counsel never requested to cross-examine the witness, and the committee's decision was reasonable and within the core academic functions of the university.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing medical reasons at the last minute.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide a medical note confirming his inability to attend and explaining the late notice.

The applicant provided a note that merely repeated his own statements and did not address the Tribunal's specific questions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying his non-attendance and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, citing medical reasons at the last minute.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned, noting the lack of medical documentation, the late notice, and the costs incurred.

The Tribunal denied the immediate request for dismissal, instead directing the applicant to provide specific medical documentation from a registered medical practitioner to substantiate his inability to attend.

Failure to comply would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The tenant leased a rental unit but later moved to a new home, allowing two friends to move into the unit without the landlord's consent.

The tenant also constructed a basement bedroom without a building permit to use during occasional overnight stays.

The landlord applied to evict the unauthorized occupants and terminate the tenancy.

The Court of Appeal held that the tenant had transferred occupancy to his friends and that the illegal construction of the bedroom was a serious illegal act justifying termination of the tenancy.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a deemed sale of a business occurred under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act when the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place leased a building to Medieval Times.

Medieval Times subsequently contracted out cleaning services to a non-unionized company, whereas the union had previously cleaned the building for the Board of Governors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a deemed sale of a business, finding that the 'premises' encompassed the entirety of Exhibition Place, that the employer had ceased in part to provide services at those premises, and that substantially similar services were subsequently provided under the direction of another employer.

Medieval Times was declared bound by the union's notice to bargain.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the calculation of interest on non-mortgage loans.

The core issue was the interpretation of the loan contract and section 4 of the Interest Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.