Tracy Kay

The defendant in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer five questions refused during his examination for discovery.

The refused questions related to a motor vehicle accident the plaintiff was involved in prior to his termination, and the subsequent litigation and settlement arising from it.

The defendant argued the information was relevant to mitigation and preventing double recovery.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that the payment obligations of an unrelated tortfeasor are distinct from those of an employer, and therefore the motor vehicle accident litigation was not relevant to the quantification of wrongful dismissal damages.

An employee's employment was terminated without cause pursuant to an employment contract containing a termination clause that limited severance pay to base salary only, thereby excluding commissions.

The employee argued the clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by contracting out of an employment standard.

The contract also contained a severability clause.

The application judge used the severability clause to excise only the offending sentence, leaving the remainder of the termination clause enforceable.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that where a termination clause contracts out of any employment standard, the entire termination clause is void under section 5(1) of the ESA, and the severability clause cannot be used to save it.

The employee is therefore entitled to common law reasonable notice.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device and obstructing a peace officer by failing to provide identification.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the roadside demand was made within the "forthwith" requirement despite a six-minute delay, as the delay was necessitated by articulated safety concerns and the accused's obstructive behaviour.

The arrest, though technically charged under the wrong provision, was supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused on both charges.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court action.

The respondent confirmed the civil action had concluded and did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should be deferred due to a concurrent Small Claims Court action scheduled for trial.

Both parties agreed to the deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on creed, marital status, and association.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a counter-claim in a Small Claims Court action, or deferred due to a Ministry of Labour claim.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Small Claims Court counter-claim did not seek human rights remedies.

The request to defer to the Ministry of Labour was also denied as that claim had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether to defer pending the Small Claims Court process.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because his counsel had lost contact with him and needed time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the personal respondent's obligation to keep the Tribunal and his counsel informed of his contact information.

The Tribunal also noted that neither party had complied with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The self-represented applicant was directed to confirm her intent to proceed with the application by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

He claimed he was unfairly demoted, paid less, denied promotions, and ultimately terminated.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was part of a legitimate corporate restructuring based on store seniority.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's discipline and termination were the result of repeated customer complaints regarding his customer service and his refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, rather than his race or reprisal for his human rights complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race in the area of housing against a hydro company, a municipal councillor, a land developer, and a lawyer.

The allegations related to a hydro easement, a noise attenuation fence, and events that occurred between 10 and 20 years prior.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the developer and lawyer due to the applicant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the hydro company and councillor, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence connecting the alleged mistreatment to the applicant's race.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding a wrongfully dismissed employee three months' notice, an additional two months' notice for bad faith (Wallace damages), and substantial indemnity costs.

The employee, a 47-year-old single mother, was given two weeks' working notice and required to train her replacement, who had already started working before she was notified of her termination.

When she objected, the employer threatened to report her as having resigned to deny her employment insurance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice period reasonable and upholding the bad faith damages due to the employer's insensitive and misleading conduct.