Terri Helen Semanyk

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued he signed the release without reading it on the advice of a paralegal and attempted to rescind it the next day.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress, inadequate consideration, or lack of capacity.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed despite the executed release would amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $6,945.18 for waste removal services.

The appellant, who suffers from a sleep disorder and admits to hoarding, argued that the contract only required him to pay the amount he received as a disability tax credit refund.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the contract was unambiguous, there was no misrepresentation, and the appellant was fully aware of his legal obligations.

Family members disputed entitlement to proceeds from a winning “CHEO Dream of a Lifetime Lottery” ticket and the ownership of jointly held real property.

The applicants alleged an agreement to equally share any lottery winnings or, alternatively, that the respondent made a valid gift of equal shares to his parents.

The respondent denied the existence of any enforceable agreement or completed gift and argued the applicants had no legal or equitable entitlement to the proceeds held in court.

The court found that material facts and credibility issues were in dispute and directed that the application proceed as an action with pleadings, discovery, and mediation.

Separately, the court granted partition and sale of jointly owned property under the Partition Act, finding no evidence that the applicant’s request for sale was vexatious, malicious, or oppressive.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil court had already made findings regarding the applicant's termination and competency, and dismissed those portions of the application to prevent relitigation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations of discriminatory comments and a poisoned work environment, as these were not raised or considered in the civil action.

The accused was charged with impaired driving.

After being informed of his right to counsel, he called his wife to contact a lawyer.

Immediately after the call, police demanded a breath sample, which he provided.

The trial judge convicted the accused, finding no Charter violation.

The District Court allowed the appeal, finding a violation.

The Court of Appeal restored the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated by the police's failure to afford him a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer, the breathalyzer evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The police's hastiness was provoked by the accused's actively obstructive and stalling behaviour, meaning the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.