Timothy M. Duggan

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing and services on multiple grounds, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish any link or connection between her allegations—which included disputes with other residents, a derogatory comment on a toilet seat, and difficulties obtaining college records—and any ground protected under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by a member of her condominium's board of directors.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also commenced a civil claim in Small Claims Court against the condominium corporation and its board president, alleging defamation and harassment.

The Tribunal found that the claims in both proceedings were substantially similar and arose from the same factual background.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The self-represented moving party brought a second motion within six months seeking to lift a stay of proceedings previously imposed pending completion of a related small claims action and payment of outstanding costs.

The court held that the prior costs orders, including those from the small claims action and earlier motions, were a threshold condition to any further consideration of lifting the stay.

The motion was characterized as an impermissible serial attempt to re-litigate issues already decided rather than a timely appeal or proper motion to set aside the earlier orders.

The motion was dismissed, the moving party's request for his own costs was rejected, and aggregate costs of $2,300 were awarded to the responding parties.

Unit owners applied for a compliance order requiring a condominium corporation to call a meeting of owners after receiving requisition forms seeking a vote on proposed alterations to common elements.

The corporation refused to call the meeting, asserting the requisition was invalid because it consisted of multiple counterpart forms and many owners printed rather than cursively signed their names.

The court held that the Condominium Act, 1998 is remedial legislation requiring a liberal interpretation and does not require a requisition to be contained in a single document or signed in cursive writing.

Printed names constitute valid signatures and counterpart documents may collectively form a requisition.

The requisition satisfied the statutory requirement that owners of at least 15 percent of the units request the meeting.

The corporation was ordered to convene the meeting pursuant to ss. 46 and 97(3) of the Act.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal by the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her for a previous human rights application by refusing to let her speak at board meetings and deleting her posts from the condominium website.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground or an intention to reprise, noting the respondent provided legitimate, non-Code reasons for its actions.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for default judgment and injunctive relief enforcing a restrictive covenant preventing a former employee from working for a competing medical spa or weight loss centre within a specified geographic radius for two years.

The court held that the non‑competition clause was unreasonable due to its excessive temporal restriction and ambiguity in its geographic scope.

The plaintiff also failed to establish irreparable harm and provided only speculative evidence of client or employee solicitation.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant because enforcing the covenant would effectively prevent the defendant from working in her field.

The motion for injunctive relief was denied.