View cases - Stewart McKelvey

21the respondents to await a Tribunal decision on remedy does not amount to wilful or recklessconduct.VIII. OTHER Expenses[102] Both Vilven and Kelly have claimed out-of-pocket expenses. These are detailed onExhibit C-18. Items 1 to 6 are for hotel, meals and travel expenses incurred to attend the hearingboth as witnesses and as observers.2010 CHRT 27 (CanLII)A. Conclusion of Other Expenses[103] The Tribunal has the discretion under s.53(2)(c) of the CHRA to award compensation forexpenses incurred as a result of the discriminatory practice. In Warman v. Winnicki, [2006]C.H.R.D No.18,the Tribunal concluded that travel, accommodation and meal expenses are not thekind of expenses contemplated by this section because they are not directly related to presenting acase to the Tribunal. They are one step removed. This was so even though the complainant inWarman appeared as a witness and provided evidence at the hearing.[104] The Tribunal noted that counsel in Warman could not refer to any authority to support anaward for these types of expenses. Nor did the complainants in this case provide any authority fortheir position that they should be reimbursed for expenses incurred to attend the hearing aswitnesses or observers.[105] Items 7, 8 and 9 relate to supplemental life insurance, retirement supplemental health planand additional cost-health plan. Air Canada provided these benefits that ended upon retirement.There is no evidence whether the benefits were fully funded by Air Canada or whether there wereemployee contributions.[106] The basis of the complainants’ claim is that they now have to wholly fund these benefits.But to participate in these plans were at the option of the complainants. Further, they would have