WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16"

Transcription

1 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT 797 APPLICATION FOR ORDER UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE ACT, 1997 APPEARANCES: For the applicant: For the respondent: For the interested party (co-defendant): Interpreter: Y. Levinson, Lawyer G. Govedaris, Lawyer Did not participate N/A Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Tribunal d appel de la sécurité professionnelle et de l assurance contre les accidents du travail 505 University Avenue 7 th Floor 505, avenue University, 7 e étage Toronto ON M5G 2P2 Toronto ON M5G 2P2

2 Decision No. 194/16 REASONS (i) Introduction [1] This is an application under section 31 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (WSIA) by the defendant, Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Paramount Fine Foods et al. ( Paramount ), in an action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, File No. CV The other defendant in the action, N.S., was notified of the application but did not file any materials nor appear at the hearing. N.S. did not make a request for a determination in respect of the action against him. (ii) Issues [2] The court action and this application arise out of an accident that occurred on January 6, [3] The issue in this application is whether the plaintiff s right of action is taken away against the applicant Paramount pursuant to section 31 of the WSIA. [4] There are three questions in dispute in this application: 1. Whether the plaintiff s claim for wrongful dismissal is taken away by the WSIA. 2. Whether the plaintiff s claim against her employer for vicarious liability of an intentional tort is taken away. 3. Whether the plaintiff s complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal under the Ontario Human Rights Code is taken away. [5] No witnesses were called. The application proceeded on the basis of the documentary record and the representatives submissions. (iii) Background [6] Paramount is an incorporated company that carries on business in multiple locations as a butcher shop, fine foods market and restaurant. [7] The plaintiff began working for the applicant in May She was originally hired to work at the butcher shop operated by Paramount. Around July 2012, she was transferred to another location, a restaurant operated by Paramount, to work as a customer service representative. She alleges that her hours of employment were reduced when she was transferred. [8] The plaintiff alleges that the defendant N.S., who worked for Paramount as a chef/cook, made lewd, sexually suggestive and inappropriate comments and that she complained of his behaviour to management but that management did not take any steps to address the behaviour other than to direct N.S. not to interact with the plaintiff. [9] The plaintiff gave notice of her resignation on or about December 24, 2012 with her last date of employment scheduled to be January 6, [10] On January 6, 2013, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted in the lunchroom by N.S., while at work. She reported the assault to her employer. She subsequently also reported the assault to the police. N.S. was charged and convicted of a criminal act.

3 Page: 3 Decision No. 194/16 [11] The plaintiff also started a civil action against Paramount and N.S. The plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful termination, sexual assault and battery. She also seeks damages against Paramount in respect of its post-incident conduct, including an allegation of spoliation of evidence, and vicarious liability of N.S. s deliberate acts. (iv) Agreed facts and issues [12] At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to the following: The part of the plaintiff s action that is framed in negligence, carelessness and recklessness against Paramount is taken away by the WSIA. Paramount is a Schedule 1 employer. The plaintiff was a worker of a Schedule 1 employer who was in the course of her employment at the time of the sexual assault. N.S. was not an executive officer, director or shareholder of Paramount. N.S. was charged and convicted of a criminal act. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff s claim against Paramount in respect of its post-incident conduct, including an allegation that Paramount allowed the security camera footage of the lunch room to be overwritten in the ordinary course or otherwise lost (spoliation of the evidence). [13] The parties disagreed on the following issues, which are the subject of this application: (v) Whether the plaintiff s claim for wrongful dismissal is taken away by the WSIA. Whether the plaintiff s claim against her employer for vicarious liability of an intentional tort is taken away. Whether the plaintiff s complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal under the Ontario Human Rights Code is taken away. Law and policy [14] Section 31 of the WSIA provides that a party to an action may apply to the Tribunal to determine whether: a right of action is taken away by the Act; whether a plaintiff is entitled to claim benefits under the insurance plan; or whether the amount a party to an action is liable to pay is limited by the Act. [15] Section 13 of the WSIA sets out when a worker is entitled to benefits under the WSIA: 13(1) A worker who sustains a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment is entitled to benefits under the insurance plan. (2) If the accident arises out of the worker s employment, it is presumed to have occurred in the course of the employment unless the contrary is shown. If it occurs in the course of the worker s employment, it is presumed to have arisen out of the employment unless the contrary is shown. [16] Sections 26 through 29 of the WSIA provide the following: 26(1) No action lies to obtain benefits under the insurance plan, but all claims for benefits shall be heard and determined by the Board. (2) Entitlement to benefits under the insurance plan is in lieu of all rights of action (statutory or otherwise) that a worker, a worker s survivor or a worker s spouse, child or dependant has or may have against the worker s employer or an executive officer of

4 Page: 4 Decision No. 194/16 the employer for or by reason of an accident happening to the worker or an occupational disease contracted by the worker while in the employment of the employer. 27(1) Sections 28 to 31 apply with respect to a worker who sustains an injury or a disease that entitles him or her to benefits under the insurance plan and to the survivors of a deceased worker who are entitled to benefits under the plan. (2) If a worker s right of action is taken away under section 28 or 29, the worker s spouse, child, dependant or survivors are, also, not entitled to commence an action under section 61 of the Family Law Act. 28(1) A worker employed by a Schedule 1 employer, the worker s survivors and a Schedule 1 employer are not entitled to commence an action against the following persons in respect of the worker s injury or disease: 1. Any Schedule 1 employer. 2. A director, executive officer or worker employed by any Schedule 1 employer. (2) A worker employed by a Schedule 2 employer and the worker s survivors are not entitled to commence an action against the following persons in respect of the worker s injury or disease: 1. The worker s Schedule 2 employer. 2. A director, executive officer or worker employed by the worker s Schedule 2 employer. (3) If the workers of one or more employers were involved in the circumstances in which the worker sustained the injury, subsection (1) applies only if the workers were acting in the course of their employment. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if any employer other than the worker s employer supplied a motor vehicle, machinery or equipment on a purchase or rental basis without also supplying workers to operate the motor vehicle, machinery or equipment. 29(1) This section applies in the following circumstances: 1. In an action by or on behalf of a worker employed by a Schedule 1 employer or a survivor of such a worker, any Schedule 1 employer or a director, executive officer or another worker employed by a Schedule 1 employer is determined to be at fault or negligent in respect of the accident or the disease that gives rise to the worker s entitlement to benefits under the insurance plan. 2. In an action by or on behalf of a worker employed by a Schedule 2 employer or a survivor of such a worker, the worker s Schedule 2 employer or a director, executive officer or another worker employed by the employer is determined to be at fault or negligent in respect of the accident or the disease that gives rise to the worker s entitlement to benefits under the insurance plan. (2) The employer, director, executive officer or other worker is not liable to pay damages to the worker or his or her survivors or to contribute to or indemnify another person who is liable to pay such damages. (3) The court shall determine what portion of the loss or damage was caused by the fault or negligence of the employer, director, executive officer or other worker and shall do so whether or not he, she or it is a party to the action. (4) No damages, contribution or indemnity for the amount determined under subsection (3) to be caused by a person described in that subsection is recoverable in an action.

5 Page: 5 Decision No. 194/16 [17] For the purposes of a right to sue application, it is typically unnecessary to make a factual finding about the allegations set out in a Statement of Claim. Instead, the Tribunal presumes that the events occurred as pleaded in the Statement of Claim and evaluates whether in that situation a right to sue is removed by the WSIA (see for example: Decision Nos. 1802/10 and 353/07). (vi) Conclusions (a) Is the plaintiff s claim for wrongful dismissal taken away by the WSIA? [18] In her Statement of Claim, the plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful dismissal and wrongful termination of her employment. [19] The Statement of Claim provides various particulars regarding her claim for wrong dismissal, which are summarized below: On or about July 2012, Paramount unilaterally altered the terms of the plaintiff s employment to drastically reduced hours in a non-butcher position at the restaurant premises. The plaintiff pleads that the fundamental changes to her employment agreement without her consent amounted to a constructive dismissal. N.S. made lewd, sexually suggestive and inappropriate comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff s complained of N.S. s behaviour to management but management took no steps to address his behaviour other than direct him not to interact with the plaintiff. Paramount expressly/implicitly endorsed his behaviour. On or about December 24, 2012, the plaintiff gave notice that she could no longer work under the poisoned work environment and conditions and the employer agreed that her last shift would be January 6, The plaintiff states that the decision to terminate her was made after she complained of inappropriate conduct. She states that she never resigned her employment but was dismissed or constructively dismissed. [20] Under damages from the wrongful termination, the plaintiff pleads: The manner in which she was terminated caused her humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem and loss of self-worth. The plaintiff was constructively dismissed and/or dismissed from her employment without just cause and without any notice and for no other reasons. The plaintiff sustained damages and continues to suffer economic loss. [21] The respondent submits that several Tribunal decisions (Decision Nos. 494/04 and 237/03) have held that where personal injury and wrongful dismissal claims are advanced in a statement of claim, the WSIA does not operate to bar the wrongful dismissal cause of action. [22] The applicant submits that that the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim regarding the wrongful dismissal claim are inextricably linked to the claim that is excluded by section 28 of the WSIA. The applicant relies on Decision No. 566/00 where it was found that the respondent s claims for damages in negligence and wrongful dismissal were inextricably linked

6 Page: 6 Decision No. 194/16 and were therefore statute-barred. The applicant submits that the unjust dismissal claim arises out of the same fact - the sexual assault - which occurred in the course of the plaintiff s employment. [23] Decision No. 237/03 1 reviewed a number of Tribunal decisions where subsequent to a workplace accident a plaintiff brought an action for personal injury and for wrongful dismissal. It noted that the overwhelming preponderance of those decisions found that an action for wrongful dismissal is not statute-barred. One of the few decisions that found that the plaintiff s action for wrongful dismissal was taken away by the WSIA, Decision No. 566/00, was decided based on an agreement between the parties. In that application, the Panel accepted the parties agreement that the respondent s claims for damages in negligence and wrongful dismissal were inextricably linked to the workplace accident and therefore state-barred. Unlike Decision No. 237/03, the decision does not include a detailed analysis of the jurisprudence and seems to have been essentially determined on the consent of the parties. I prefer the more detailed analysis of Decision No. 237/03. [24] In both Decision No. 237/03 and in this application, the wrongful dismissal action is in respect of an allegation of dismissal, constructive or otherwise. The action is not framed for or by reason of an accident. While there may be an incidental relationship between the facts underlying a worker s personal injury by accident and those underlying an allegation of wrongful dismissal, they are not sufficient to support a determination that the action for wrongful dismissal should be taken away by the WSIA. I further note that in this case, some of the facts pleaded in respect of the wrongful dismissal are completely separate from N.S. s conduct and relate instead to the change of the worker s terms of employment when she was transferred from the butcher shop to the restaurant premises. [25] The remedy for wrongful dismissal, as has been noted in several of the decisions, is damages in lieu of notice. The WSIA does not provide this remedy; a cause of action for wrongful dismissal is therefore not subsumed by the WSIA. [26] I apply the analysis in Decision No. 237/03 and find that the worker s claim for wrongful dismissal is not taken away by the WSIA. (b) Is the plaintiff s claim against her employer for vicarious liability of an intentional tort taken away? [27] The respondent submits that there is no Tribunal decision that has directly considered whether the WSIA removes a plaintiff s claim against her employer for vicarious liability of an intentional tort. [28] Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim pleads: The defendant [N.S.] is an individual who at all material times was a manager and/or principal 2 of the Paramount Defendants having effective control in his role as the head chef of Paramount Fine Foods The Paramount Defendants are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their employees, agents and principals, including [N.S.], under the legal doctrine of respondent superior. [29] The respondent submits that developments in the area of vicarious liability for criminal acts have not yet been explicitly addressed by the Tribunal. The respondent further submits that recent Ontario Superior Court and Court of Appeal decisions have awarded and/or upheld 1 A reconsideration of this decision was denied in Decision No. 237/03R. 2 For the purposes of this Tribunal application, the parties agreed that N.S. was not an executive officer, director of shareholder of Paramount.

7 Page: 7 Decision No. 194/16 awards for damages to victims of sexual assault and battery as against their employers. The respondent submits that the thread in Tribunal jurisprudence is that the intent of workers compensation legislation is to give workers a no-fault scheme for compensation and to protect employers from causes of action framed in negligence and recklessness only. [30] The applicant submits that this is not a novel issue and that the Tribunal has found employers to be immune from liability for their employees intentional torts. Only when an employer is the perpetrator of the criminal act is the usual protection afforded to employers taken away. In this case, the employer did not engage in criminal acts. [31] As acknowledged by both parties, Tribunal decisions have held that when an owner, director or officer of an employer is the perpetrator of a criminal act, that individual is not protected by the WSIA (see for example, Decision Nos. 2282/05 3 ). It is agreed in this application that N.S., the individual convicted of a criminal act, was not an executive officer, director or shareholder of Paramount. [32] The respondent submits that the only Tribunal decision to have broached the topic of vicarious liability is Decision No. 452/09. In that case, the plaintiff had commenced an action against her supervisor and her employer in respect of sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed by the supervisor. Paragraph 2 of the decision indicates that the Statement of Claim pleaded that the corporate Defendant is, in law, responsible for the actions of its employee. The issue in the appeal was whether the WSIA barred the plaintiff s right of action against her employer. [33] The decision ultimately concluded that subsection 26(2) of the WSIA was a complete answer to the application. Subsection 26(2) provides for entitlement to benefits under the insurance plan in lieu of all rights of action that a worker has against her employer. The plaintiff was entitled to claim benefits under section 13 of the WSIA, such that her right of action against her employer was barred by virtue of subsection 26(2) 4. [34] Paragraph 26 of Decision No. 452/09 also addressed one of the arguments raised by the respondent. The respondent submitted that the employer should not be protected from civil suit because the employer was aware of the supervisor s inappropriate conduct vis-à-vis another female employee prior to the respondent s assault. Decision No. 452/09 concluded that there was no direct evidence that the employer condoned the supervisor s actions. On the contrary, the employer terminated the supervisor after being made aware of the allegations of the female employees. The decision therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the employer itself engaged in any criminal or quasi-criminal conduct to the point that it ceased being an employer or took part in actions that were outside of the scope of employment. [35] One of the Court cases cited by the respondent is M.B. v Ontario Ltd., carrying on business as Deluxe Windows of Canada, et al. [2012] ONCA 135 where the Court of Appeal upheld a damages award against the defendant employer. The plaintiff in that case was assaulted by her supervisor who was a principal and part owner of the company for whom she worked. This was not a case of the employer s vicarious liability of one of its employees but rather, one where the perpetrator was in effect the plaintiff s employer. 3 A reconsideration of this decision was denied in Decision No. 2282/05R. 4 Subsection 26(2) of the WSIA is an absolute bar to an action by a worker injured in the course of his or her employment against his or her employer. See Decision No. 977/03 at paragraph 39 for an explanation of the interplay between subsection 26(2) and 28(3) of the WSIA.

8 Page: 8 Decision No. 194/16 [36] The respondent also relied on K.T. v. Vranich [2011] O.J. No In that case, the plaintiff was assaulted by the manager of the nightclub where she worked. She sued the manager (Vranich) and the nightclub (Elixir). All of the defendants were noted in default and therefore did not defend the lawsuit. There was evidence in that case that the manager was not just an employee but the ostensible face of this corporation. [37] Ultimately, the court concluded that Vranich wielded considerable economic power over the plaintiff and that there was a definite link between Vranich operating Elixir and his ability to dominate the plaintiff. The court held: [g]iven the de facto identification of Vranich as the working face/operating mind of Elixir and the circumstances that he took advantage of, it is not difficult to find vicarious liability on the part of Elixir ( Ontario Inc.) for the actions of Denis Vranich. [38] As in Deluxe Windows, there appears to have been an element of ownership and/or directing mind in the relationship between Vranich and Elixir. In the case before me, it was agreed that N.S. was not a shareholder, director or executive officer of Paramount. It was also not claimed that N.S. was the operating mind of Paramount. [39] The applicant relies on Decision No. 201/95, which held that the plaintiffs action against their employer for an intentional tort was taken away by the WSIA. The Panel held that the fact that the worker's lawsuit is framed in terms of civil wrongs other than negligence does not, in and of itself, take those actions outside the scope of section 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 5 : The question to be resolved, in our view, is whether any or all of those alleged civil wrongs arise out of a workplace accident. To the extent that they do, the Respondents legal action is barred by section 16. [40] The facts of this case are not dissimilar to those of Decision No. 2501/09. The plaintiff in that case was assaulted in a parking lot by her crew chef. The crew chief was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. Having committed a criminal offence, the crew chief was not acting in the course of his employment and the plaintiff s right of action against him was not taken away by the WSIA. With respect to the plaintiff s action against her employer, the Vice-Chair found that subsection 26(2) of the WSIA was an absolute bar to an action by a worker injured in the course of her employment against her own employer. [41] I interpret the Tribunal jurisprudence as a whole as essentially stating that where a plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the WSIA, her rights of action against her own employer in respect of the workplace accident are taken away unless the employer s actions were criminal in nature such that the employer removed itself from the scope of the WSIA. [42] In this case, the plaintiff is alleging vicarious liability for N.S. s act and alleges that Paramount condoned harassment by N.S. The parties have agreed that the post-assault conduct is outside of the Tribunal s jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have only considered the plaintiff s claim against her employer leading up to and including the assault. All of these alleged events occurred while the plaintiff was acting in the course of her employment. Both sexual harassment and sexual assault have been accepted in Tribunal jurisprudence as falling within the definition of a workplace accident. The events therefore arose out of a workplace accident and as a result, the plaintiff s action against her employer, with the exception of the wrongful dismissal claim, is taken away by the WSIA. There is no claim in the Statement of Claim that Paramount s actions and those of its executive officers, directors and/or shareholders were 5 Section 16 of the Workers Compensation Act is the predecessor to subsection 26(2) of the WSIA.

9 Page: 9 Decision No. 194/16 criminal in nature so as to take them out of the scope of employment and outside the purview of the WSIA. (c) Is the plaintiff s complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal under the Ontario Human Rights Code taken away? [43] Section 31 of the WSIA allows a party to an action to apply to the Appeals Tribunal to determine whether the right to commence an action is taken away. [44] In addition to her court action, the plaintiff has also filed an application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has released an interim decision in the application deferring the application pending the conclusion of other proceedings initiated by the plaintiff. [45] The respondent relies on Decision No. 2035/05 regarding its finding that an action, as defined in section 31 of the WSIA, does not include an application such that a party to an application cannot seek relief at the Tribunal under section 31 of the WSIA. [46] The applicant submits that the facts pleaded in the plaintiff s application under the Ontario Human Rights Code are essentially identical to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim. The applicant submits that if personal injury in the course of employment is covered by the workers compensation scheme, it is wrong to have double compensation where a plaintiff can essentially sue the employer multiple times based on the same facts. The applicant furthermore disagrees with the Tribunal jurisprudence s restrictive definition of the term action in section 31. The applicant submits that the plaintiff should not be able to use the same facts as the basis for more than one recourse for compensation and relies on Béliveau St-Jacques v. F.E.E.S.P., [1996] 2 S.C.R [47] In Béliveau, a worker alleged that she had been the victim of harassment in the workplace. She instituted a liability action based on the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms against her employers and the alleged harasser in the Superior Court. She subsequently obtained compensation under the Quebec Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases ( AIAOD ), for having suffered an employment injury as a result of the same events. The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the victim of an industrial accident who has received compensation under the AIAOD may in addition bring a civil liability action based on the Charter. [48] The majority of the SCC held that the civil immunity of employers and co-workers under subsections 438 and 442 of the AIAOD is broad in scope and applies to an action under section 49 of the Charter based on the events that gave rise to the employment injury, because this remedy, in so far as it authorizes a claim of compensatory and exemplary damages, is a civil liability remedy. The majority noted that the object of the AIAOD is to provide compensation for employment injuries and the consequences they entail for beneficiaries. It establishes a compensation system that is based on the principles of insurance and no-fault collective liability, the main purpose of which is compensation and thus a form of final liquidation of remedies. The victim of an employment injury receives partial, fixed-sum compensation, and a civil liability action against the victim's employer (section 438) or against a co-worker who is alleged to have committed a fault in the performance of his or her duties (section 442) is prohibited. [49] I note that the Béliveau decision concerns a civil action brought under the Charter. It does not address whether similar reasoning would apply regarding an application under a

10 Page: 10 Decision No. 194/16 provincial human rights code. As noted in Decision No. 312/12, some of the remedies available under the Ontario Human Rights Code are not available under the WSIA. For example, in her application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the plaintiff is seeking general damages, special damages and public interest remedies. There is no legislative authority under the WSIA to grant public interest remedies. [50] Furthermore, Béliveau arose out of a motion brought by the employer to the Quebec Superior Court. It was not initiated before an administrative Tribunal. [51] According to section 31 of the WSIA, the Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to consider an application brought by a party to an action for a determination that the right to commence an action is taken away. The term action has been repeatedly defined as a court proceeding within the meaning of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario). It does not include a grievance (Decision No. 307 /00) or an application (Decision No. 2035/05). Whether or not there is merit to the applicant s argument in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Béliveau, the employer s recourse is not with this Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have the statutory authority to make a finding that the WSIA removes the plaintiff s right to bring an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code. (vii) The plaintiff s right to claim benefits with the WSIB [52] It was agreed in this case and I accept that the plaintiff was a worker in the course of her employment at the time of the assault. She is accordingly entitled to claim benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ( WSIB ). In this respect I note subsection 31(4) of the WSIA, which provides: 31(1) A party to an action or an insurer from whom statutory accident benefits are claimed under section 268 of the Insurance Act may apply to the Appeals Tribunal to determine, (a) whether, because of this Act, the right to commence an action is taken away; (b) whether the amount that a person may be liable to pay in an action is limited by this Act; or (c) whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim benefits under the insurance plan. (4) Despite subsections 22(1) and (2), a worker or survivor may file a claim for benefits within six months after the tribunal s determination under subsection (1).

11 Page: 11 Decision No. 194/16 DISPOSITION [53] The application is granted in part. 1. The plaintiff s claim for wrongful dismissal is not taken away by the WSIA. 2. The plaintiff s claim against Paramount for vicarious liability of an intentional tort is taken away by the WSIA. 3. The Appeals Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under section 31 of the WSIA to take away the plaintiff s right to bring an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code. [54] No order was sought on behalf of N.S. therefore no determination is being made in respect of the plaintiff s action against N.S. [55] Subsection 31(4) of the WSIA provides that a claim may be filed with the WSIB six months after a section 31 determination is made. DATED: March 23, 2016 SIGNED: S. Martel

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 23, 2015 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: May 13, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT 1038

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16 BEFORE: V. Marafioti : Vice-Chair M. Christie : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 BEFORE: HEARING: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair B. Davis : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2005-01460-RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005 Extension of time Election Section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act Policy item #111.22 of the

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2635/15E

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2635/15E WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2635/15E BEFORE: S. Peckover: Vice-Chair HEARING: December 4, 2015 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: December 7, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015

More information

Practice Directions Directives de procédure

Practice Directions Directives de procédure Practice Directions Directives de procédure Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Tribunal d appel de la sécurité professionnelle et de l assurance contre les accidents du travail PRACTICE DIRECTIONS

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1882/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1882/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1882/15 BEFORE: M. C. Smith : Vice-Chair B. Wheeler : Member Representative of Employers C. Salama : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, -against- Plaintiff, COUNTY OF ULSTER, ULSTER COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT,

More information

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Providing fair and accessible justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Guide Applying for Compensation for a Death 0311E (2018/02) Disponible en français Page 1 of

More information

Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties.

Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. Civil Disputes Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. The main purpose of Civil Law is to compensate victims. Civil

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2014-00133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND ANAND SINGH Defendant AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD

More information

Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work).

Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work). SUMMARY 892/91 DECISION NO. 892/91 Brunino v. Principe PANEL: McCombie; Thomspon; Nipshagen DATE: 11/05/92 Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work). Two defendants in a civil

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal).

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal). FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE:130694 ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal). SUM: The defendant in a civil case applied to determine

More information

Part 1 Interpretation

Part 1 Interpretation The New Limitation Act Explained Page 1 Part 1 Interpretation This Part defines terms and provides some general principles of interpretation for the new Limitation Act ( new Act ). Division 1 Definitions

More information

CLASS ACTIONS IN QUEBEC RATIONE MATERIAE JURISDICTION: A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

CLASS ACTIONS IN QUEBEC RATIONE MATERIAE JURISDICTION: A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CLASS ACTIONS IN QUEBEC RATIONE MATERIAE JURISDICTION: A PRELIMINARY ISSUE By Catherine Piché Fasken Matineau DuMoulin LLP Stock Exchange Tower Suite 3400, P.O. Box 242 800 Square Victoria Montreal, Quebec

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL: 08/19/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

Number 13 of 2002 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Number 13 of 2002 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Number 13 of 2002 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Interpretation. 2. Establishment day. 3. Establishment of Board. 4. Additional Institution. 5. Functions

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :09 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :09 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PATRICIA RYBNIK, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 158679/2016 MW 303 Corp. d/b/a MANHATTAN WEST HOTEL CORP., CYMO TRADING CORP., DANIEL DANSO, YOUNG

More information

STATUTE SECTION STATUTORY BREACH LIABILITY DEFENCE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FEDERAL STATUTES Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C 1985, c. C-8.

STATUTE SECTION STATUTORY BREACH LIABILITY DEFENCE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FEDERAL STATUTES Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C 1985, c. C-8. FEDERAL STATUTES Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C 1985, c. C-8. s. 21 Failure to deduct or remit the prescribed amount from an employee s remuneration, as and when required, to the Receiver General. s. 21.1(1)

More information

Guide. Applying for Compensation for an Injury. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Guide. Applying for Compensation for an Injury. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Providing fair and accessible justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Guide Applying for Compensation for an Injury 010E (2016/12) Queen s Printer for Ontario, 2016

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 RODNEY V. JOHNSON v. TRANE U.S. INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000880-09 Gina

More information

NEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:

NEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful: NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person

More information

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled

More information

Revised OBJECTS AND REASONS. This Bill would (a)

Revised OBJECTS AND REASONS. This Bill would (a) Revised 2017-10-18 OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill would (d) make provision for the protection of employees in both the public sector and private sector from sexual harassment at their workplace; provide

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DENNIS G. HUCKINS. MARK MCSWEENEY & a. Argued: February 12, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 11, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DENNIS G. HUCKINS. MARK MCSWEENEY & a. Argued: February 12, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 11, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX

CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE

More information

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION, OBJECTION PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING LONG FORM NOTICE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE EI SICKNESS BENEFITS CLASS ACTION Did you apply for, and were denied, a conversion

More information

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways

More information

RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION

RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICY NUMBER BRD 17-0 APPROVAL DATE MAY 28, 2009 PREVIOUS AMENDMENT NEW REVIEW DATE MAY 28, 2014 AUTHORITY PRIMARY CONTACT BOARD OF GOVERNORS GENERAL COUNSEL

More information

LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Present: All the Justices LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No. 992179 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY H.

More information

c 82 Compensation for Victims of Crime Act

c 82 Compensation for Victims of Crime Act Ontario: Revised Statutes 1980 c 82 Compensation for Victims of Crime Act Ontario Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1980 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/rso Bibliographic

More information

ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: CYPRUS

ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: CYPRUS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: CYPRUS This report was produced by White & Case LLP in March 2014 but may have been subsequently edited by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN takes full responsibility

More information

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals

More information

Liability for criminal acts of employees

Liability for criminal acts of employees Liability for criminal acts of employees Carrie Meigs Teague Campbell Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P. KNOW YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS Derivative Liability Respondeat Superior What does it mean? Let the master answer

More information

Section 257 of the Workers Compensation Act and Related Employment Litigation

Section 257 of the Workers Compensation Act and Related Employment Litigation EMPLOYMENT LAW CONFERENCE 2017 PAPER 6.1 Section 257 of the Workers Compensation Act and Related Employment Litigation These materials were prepared by Valerie S. Dixon of Miller Thomson LLP, Vancouver,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

POLICY MANUAL PART ONE INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICY. The interpretation of the Code of Conduct will be at the discretion of the Council.

POLICY MANUAL PART ONE INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICY. The interpretation of the Code of Conduct will be at the discretion of the Council. POLICY MANUAL Legal References: Municipal Government Act Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Local Authorities Election Act Cross References: Procedural Bylaw 3001 Policy department: Council

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2004 ONWSIAT 2252 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1562/02 [1] This right to sue application was heard in Toronto on November 7, 2002, by a Panel consisting of: N.A. Ross :

More information

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario

More information

ADDRESSING CONFLICTING HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME RECENT CASE LAW

ADDRESSING CONFLICTING HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME RECENT CASE LAW ADDRESSING CONFLICTING HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME RECENT CASE LAW Raj Anand Partner WeirFoulds LLP 416-947-5091 ranand@weirfoulds.com - and - S. Priya Morley Associate WeirFoulds LLP 416-619-6294 pmorley@weirfoulds.com

More information

a) test the strength of the opposing positions and encourage the parties to reach a compromise b) ensure that all documents are in order before trial

a) test the strength of the opposing positions and encourage the parties to reach a compromise b) ensure that all documents are in order before trial Question 1 The purpose of discovery is to a) test the strength of the opposing positions and encourage the parties to reach a compromise b) ensure that all documents are in order before trial c) ensure

More information

C-451 Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act

C-451 Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act Proposed Canadian National Law C-451 Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act Second Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament, 51-52 Elizabeth II, 2002-2003 An Act to prevent psychological harassment

More information

Chapter 11 DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION Defense by Town authorized; attorney; avoidance of default judgment.

Chapter 11 DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION Defense by Town authorized; attorney; avoidance of default judgment. Chapter 11 DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION 11-1. Definitions. 11-2. Defense by Town authorized; attorney; avoidance of default judgment. 11-3 Conditions. 11-4. Limitation of applicability. 11-5. Extension

More information

Significant Workers Compensation Cases

Significant Workers Compensation Cases December 2012 Workers Compensation Law Section Significant Workers Compensation Cases By: Ryan J. Conlin* This article provides a review of some of the most interesting decisions issued by courts in the

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 2:16-cv-02814-JFB Document 9 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 223 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK N o 16-CV-2814 (JFB) RAYMOND A. TOWNSEND, Appellant, VERSUS GERALYN

More information

New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual. Date: Chapter: L Legal Subchapter: 1 Legal Procedures

New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual. Date: Chapter: L Legal Subchapter: 1 Legal Procedures New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual Manual: CP&P Child Protection and Permanency Effective Volume: IX Administrative Date: Chapter: L Legal Subchapter: 1 Legal Procedures 1-9-2012

More information

Overview of Canadian Law and Courts. The Bijural System

Overview of Canadian Law and Courts. The Bijural System Overview of Canadian Law and Courts Eric E. Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of North Dakota ericejohnson.com Konomark Most rights sharable. The Bijural System Except for Quebec, where the

More information

APRIL 2017 RECOGNITION AND PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE POLICY

APRIL 2017 RECOGNITION AND PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE POLICY APRIL 2017 RECOGNITION AND PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE POLICY The Royal Canadian Golf Association, operating as ( ), is committed to providing a sport and work environment that

More information

Case 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17

Case 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17 Case 2:17-cv-14382-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: KELLY DOE, vs. Plaintiff, EVAN CRAMER,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Ross E. Shanberg (SBN Shane C. Stafford (SBN Aaron A. Bartz (SBN SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP 0 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 00 Irvine, California Tel:

More information

Case 2:10-cv WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:10-cv WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6 Case 210-cv-00097-WOB-JGW Document 1 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON TAMMY BROCK Case No. 382 Keegan Court Burlington,

More information

No. SC-CV SUPREME COURT OF THE NAVAJO NATION. GWENDOLENE BEGAY, Appellant,

No. SC-CV SUPREME COURT OF THE NAVAJO NATION. GWENDOLENE BEGAY, Appellant, No. SC-CV-44-08 SUPREME COURT OF THE NAVAJO NATION GWENDOLENE BEGAY, Appellant, v. NAVAJO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY and THE NAVAJO NATION, Appellees. OPINION Before YAZZIE, H., Chief Justice

More information

Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819

Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental

More information

FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9),

FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9), FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: 021087 ACT: 15, 8(9), 8(10), 8(11) KEYW: Right to sue; Supplier of motor vehicle,

More information

Nova Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (Policy).

Nova Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (Policy). Nova Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (Policy). Approved by the Nova Scotia House of Assembly on May 19, 2016. Effective date May 20, 2016.

More information

HYDERALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

HYDERALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. HYDERALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Ty Hyderally, Esq. 33 Plymouth Street, Suite 202 Montclair, NJ 07042 tyh@employmentlit.com www.employmentlit.com O- (973) 509-8500 F (973) 509-8501 HOW TO USE TORTS TACTICALLY

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal

More information

ROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

ROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA PRESENT: All the Justices ROBBY NIESE OPINION BY v. Record No. 012007 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 7, 2002 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Alfred D. Swersky, Judge

More information

Rugby Ontario Policy Manual

Rugby Ontario Policy Manual 8.1.2 Harassment is a form of discrimination. Harassment is prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by human rights legislation in every province and territory of Canada and in its

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Melina Laverty, Chair; Aly N. Alibhai and Daphne Simon, Members Re: Arafat Bakshi (Report No. 6571) Applicant for Renewal

More information

Parliamentary Research Branch HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE. Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division

Parliamentary Research Branch HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE. Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division Mini-Review MR-102E HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division 13 October 1992 Revised 18 September 1997 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque du

More information

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below. It has been prepared

More information

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY PART II

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY PART II THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT, 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY Section: 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Application of Act PART II ESTABLISHMENT, COMPOSITION

More information

SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF NIGERIA ACT

SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF NIGERIA ACT SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF NIGERIA ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Establishment and Governing Board of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria

More information

Regime of compensation for victims of crimes

Regime of compensation for victims of crimes Regime of compensation for victims of crimes A. Overview Numerous acts of terrorism have been carried out in the world over the last two decades with dramatic consequences for nations and people. Some

More information

Overlapping Jurisdiction and Ontario s New Human Rights Code. CBA Elder Law Conference. June 12, 2009

Overlapping Jurisdiction and Ontario s New Human Rights Code. CBA Elder Law Conference. June 12, 2009 Overlapping Jurisdiction and Ontario s New Human Rights Code CBA Elder Law Conference June 12, 2009 David A. Wright Vice-Chair Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Overlapping Jurisdiction and Ontario s New

More information

Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points

Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points The Six-Minute Labour Lawyer 2010 The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto, Ontario June 15, 2010 Graham J. Clarke Vice-Chairperson Canada Industrial Relations

More information

PROTECTION FOR PERSONS IN CARE ACT

PROTECTION FOR PERSONS IN CARE ACT Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of February 20, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Queen s Printer Bookstore Suite 700, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,

More information

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings

More information

The right of action was taken away since the parties were in the course of employment at the time of the accident. [10 pages]

The right of action was taken away since the parties were in the course of employment at the time of the accident. [10 pages] DECISION NO. 270 / 93 SUMMARY Right to sue; In the course of employment (parking lots); Legal precedent (consistency). The defendant in a civil case applied to determine whether the plaintiffs right of

More information

REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Victoria Romero, Hearing Panel Chair; Anu Bakshi and Gary Yee, Members Re: Shamim Chowdhury (Report No. 6969) Applicant

More information

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015)

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015) UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015) Disciplinary Procedure 1 Sabbatical Officer Trustees... 2 Disciplinary Procedure 2 Elected Representatives... 12 Disciplinary

More information

Huron-Perth Catholic District School Board

Huron-Perth Catholic District School Board POLICY: SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS AND SUSPENSION LEADING TO EXPULSION OF STUDENTS Adopted: September 24, 2001 Policy #: 3D:1 Revised: May 25, 2015 Policy Category: Student Services POLICY STATEMENT: Pursuant

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA36 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0224 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV34778 Honorable Morris B. Hoffman, Judge Faith Leah Tancrede, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

More information

Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37

Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part

More information

Legal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities

Legal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Overview Of Court Procedure 1 Rajah & Tann 4 Battery Road #26-01 Bank of China Building Singapore 049908

More information

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State

More information

Arbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory

Arbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory Arbitration Act 1996 1996 CHAPTER 23 1 Part I Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Introductory 1. General principles. 2. Scope of application of provisions. 3. The seat of the arbitration.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAMELA PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 6, 2006 v No. 249737 Wayne Circuit Court FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DANIEL P. LC No. 01-134649-CL BENNETT, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL, Arrangement of Clauses PART I PRELIMINARY PART II

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL, Arrangement of Clauses PART I PRELIMINARY PART II THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL, 1999 Arrangement of Clauses PART I PRELIMINARY Clause: 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Application of Act PART II ESTABLISHMENT, COMPOSITION

More information

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained

More information

Canada: Canadian Human Rights Act

Canada: Canadian Human Rights Act Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR GLADNET Collection Gladnet July 1996 Canada: Canadian Human Rights Act Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/gladnetcollect

More information

Case 3:08-cv CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:08-cv CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12 Case 3:08-cv-00141-CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA-DAVENPORT DIVISION MELISSA ROSE WALDING MILLIGAN, Plaintiff, No.

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION SOLEIL BONNIN 5901 Montrose Road, Apt. C802 Rockville, MD 20852 v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

More information

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 Western Australia Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 As at 29 Nov 2012 Version 07-e0-01 Western Australia Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 CONTENTS Part I Preliminary 1. Short title 2 2. Commencement

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants. vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants. vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM GLENN W. GIBBS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. LEE HOLMES, JOAN HOLMES, and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Defendants-Appellees OPINION Filed: June

More information

The Gas Inspection Act, 1993

The Gas Inspection Act, 1993 1 GAS INSPECTION, 1993 c. G-3.2 The Gas Inspection Act, 1993 being Chapter G-3.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1993, (effective May 21, 1993) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1996, c.9; 1998,

More information

Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines

Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,

More information

THIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS:

THIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS: THIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS: I. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be entitled the Sycuan Band

More information

Helen accepts instructions for claimants and defendants in commercial, chancery, public law, clinical negligence, and personal injury matters.

Helen accepts instructions for claimants and defendants in commercial, chancery, public law, clinical negligence, and personal injury matters. clerks@4-5.co.uk +44 (0)20 7404 5252 Helen McAteer Year of call: 2008 +44 (0) 20 7404 5252 hmcateer@4-5.co.uk Practice Summary Helen accepts instructions for claimants and defendants in commercial, chancery,

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case :0-cv-000-DGC Document Filed 0//0 Page of Steven E. Harrison, Esq. (No. 00) N. Patrick Hall, Esq. (No. 0) WALLIN HARRISON PLC South Higley Road, Suite 0 Gilbert, Arizona Telephone: (0) 0-0 Facsimile:

More information