Stephanie C. Kolla

The appellant appealed from an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against a federally regulated company for alleged discrimination during a 2015 job interview.

The motions judge found no viable cause of action because there is no common law tort of discrimination and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Superior Court was the appropriate forum and that the limitation period was suspended due to incapacity.

The Court of Appeal found no basis for appellate intervention, noting the appellant had commenced several other lawsuits during the relevant period, undermining his incapacity claim.

The motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as it failed to meet the test for admission.

Three defendants each brought motions to compel the plaintiff railway company to answer questions refused on examination for discovery in an action arising from a 2020 train derailment involving a tanker car with a defective wheelset.

The court assessed relevance and proportionality of the requested questions, ordering the plaintiff to answer 4 of 12 questions sought by the railway manufacturer, 1 of 9 sought by the tanker car owner, and 3 of 4 sought by the shipper.

Costs followed the divided success, with the tanker car owner ordered to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff ordered to pay $7,500 to the shipper.

The applicants, five community futures organizations, sought the appointment of MNP Ltd. as receiver over Future Health Technologies Inc. (FHT) under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

FHT provides technology and technical support for the Community Paramedicine Remote Patient Monitoring Program (CPRPM), which delivers free tele-home monitoring services to approximately 1,500 chronically ill patients in rural Ontario.

The respondent, 2804476 Ontario Inc., opposed the application, arguing the receivership was a scheme to seize control of disputed intellectual property.

The court found that FHT was insolvent, that the appointment of a receiver was necessary to preserve critical healthcare services, and that the applicants held valid secured debt.

The court appointed the receiver and granted a stay of proceedings in related litigation, while confirming that the receiver would not take possession of disputed intellectual property without further court order.

The appellant, Haytham Elzayat, moved under section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of Roberts J.A. denying his request to include a transcript of oral argument from the court below in his appeal materials.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the exercise of discretion by Roberts J.A., holding that the transcript was not necessary or relevant for the fair hearing of the appeal.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The defendant, Rogers Communication, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from alleged discrimination during a 2015 job interview.

Rogers argued the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period, a prior release from a 2018 human rights complaint, and that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction as there is no common law tort of discrimination for federally regulated entities.

The plaintiff, self-represented, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to dismiss Rogers' motion, asserting incapacity tolled the limitation period and that the release did not apply to the 2015 incident.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the Superior Court has no common law remedy for discrimination against federally regulated entities, and that the action was time-barred as the plaintiff failed to prove incapacity, despite the release being ambiguous regarding the 2015 incident.