How have the courts treated the issue of substantial prejudice in cases involving good faith and substantial prejudice?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Blazewicz v. Great Clips Salon, 2021 HRTO 867 (CanLII):

In light of the findings above regarding good faith, it is unnecessary to address the issue of substantial prejudice. See Esanu v. Georgetown Men’s Non-Contact Hockey League, 2009 HRTO 579.

Other Questions


How have the courts treated the issue of substantial prejudice in cases involving good faith and substantial prejudice? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts in Canada treated the issue of sexual harassment in the context of sexual assault cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts treated comments made by the Attorney General in the context of the issue of personal injury cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts in Canada dealt with the issue of personal injury cases involving personal injury claims? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts treated medical malpractice in cases involving an ectopic pregnancy? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts treated the issue of wisdom tooth replacement surgery in the context of dental malpractice cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts dealt with the issue of substantial prejudice in an application for a non-contact hockey league? (Ontario, Canada)
How have the courts in India treated the issue of personal injury cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts treated the issue of mitigation in medical malpractice cases? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
How have courts treated the issue of refugee protection in civil cases? (Canada (Federal), Canada)