0"\"\"9'1 11 Locate the Ontario Superior Court 2017 decision in mambapftfai' v. tabrash Security Services Ltd. The plaintiff Ntlfi sued Lab-rash for wrongful dismissal arising from the termination of his employment as a security guard at a answered Cascades Tissue plant where he had worked since 2000. which of the following statements best reects the reasons for the Court's decision? Marked outof 1.00 {7. Flag Select one: question 0 a. The plaintiff found other employment as a security guard earning the same compensation. Since he had completely mitigated his losses. no award of damages wasjustified and the appeal was allowed. 0 h. The appeal court granted the appeal with respect to damages for mental distress and set aside the award of $7,500 in damages. O o The motion judge correctly determined that Labrash acted in bad faith. The plaintiff was thus entitled to damages for mental distress. C) d. The motion judge erred in law because he refused to permit Viva voce evidence. This refusal to hear the entire respondent's case warranted that the judgment be overturned. Question 14 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 'F Flag question Decisions of Human Rights Tribunals are published and can be reviewed by the public. Locate the 2020 decision in an Alberta complaint made byjacqueline Thomas against her employer Stony Plain Chrysler Ltd. Which of these statements FAILS to describe the ndings made the Chief Commissioner. Michael Gottheil? SEIEJC1 ONE: 0 a. The Chief Commissioner overturned the decision of the Human Rights Director. 0 b. The review turned on whether the complainant established a reasonable basis in the evidence that disability was a factor in her termination. O o The test to be used in carrying out the review function is to ask whether there is a reasonable basis in the evidence for proceeding to a hearing before a Tribunal. The threshold is low and the Chief Commissioner is given wide latitude in performing this screening function. 0 d. In cases where a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination. the respondent must be held liable for any discrimination