Brian Sheehan

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance regarding the grievor's removal from a Painter 2 position, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union conceded the grievance was untimely but argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the time limits due to past practice, or alternatively, that the arbitrator should exercise discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time.

The arbitrator found no clear representation by the Employer to support estoppel.

Applying the factors for extending time limits, the arbitrator concluded the delay was excessive, the Employer was not forewarned, and the Union failed to provide a justifiable explanation.

The preliminary motion was upheld and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the pensioner re-employment provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The provisions limited the number of days retired teachers could work as occasional teachers without affecting their pension benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that any differential treatment was based on employment status (being a pensioner) rather than age, and employment status is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, arguing that the Case Resolution Conference was too short and that the case should have been decided by three adjudicators.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure as required by Rule 25.5(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the pensioner re-employment provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The provisions limited the number of days retired teachers could work as occasional teachers without affecting their pension benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

Following its previous decision in Clarke, the Tribunal concluded that any differential treatment was based on employment status (being a pensioner), not age, and that employment status is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative and recipient of social assistance, alleged discrimination regarding the calculation of her monthly housing charge and claimed the co-operative's attempts to evict her constituted a reprisal for her previous legal actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and was also barred by an outstanding Small Claims Court action on the same facts.

The reprisal claim was dismissed because the co-operative's actions were found to be motivated by compliance with a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation directive, not retaliation.

Allegations regarding discriminatory comments were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, arguing it conflicted with established jurisprudence under Rule 25.5(c).

The applicant sought to introduce arguments regarding Long Term Income Protection Plan benefits and pension contributions that were not extensively explored at the original hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue positions, and the applicant failed to establish that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or involved a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application.

He argued the Tribunal erred in applying jurisprudence regarding a Settlement and Release and claimed he was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was an attempt to appeal the decision and did not meet the strict criteria under Rule 25.5.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant had been afforded ample opportunity to present his case during the original hearing.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin regarding the denial of funding.

The respondents argued the application was time-barred and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while some earlier funding decisions were time-barred, the allegations pertaining to the termination of funding for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 years were filed in a timely manner or formed part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application was frivolous and vexatious, noting it did not have the express statutory authority to dismiss on that basis under the amended Code, and the application did not constitute an abuse of process.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied, and the Tribunal narrowed the issues for the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to appeal the decision and failed to satisfy the specific criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The original decision was based on the undisputed fact that the applicant was rejected as a candidate before the decision-makers had any knowledge of his sexual orientation or marital status.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status, as well as reprisal, after an executive search firm did not select him for an interview for a senior hospital human resources position.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found no factual basis to suggest the respondents' decision was related to the applicant's sexual orientation or marital status, noting the respondents were unaware of these characteristics when they initially rejected his candidacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after she was denied the ability to purchase pension credits as a full-time employee following her reclassification to permanent part-time status.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been decided in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the Grievance Settlement Board had appropriately dealt with the substance of the discrimination claim, including applying relevant human rights jurisprudence.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that his termination of employment violated the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a comprehensive Settlement and Release agreement resolving a union grievance related to the same termination.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance settlement, which included substantial monetary compensation for human rights damages.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was invalid due to contracting out of the Code, employer breach, lack of independent legal advice, duress, or lack of consideration.

The applications were dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code and as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the pensioner re-employment provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The provisions limited the number of days a retired teacher could work as an occasional teacher without their pension benefits being suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that any differential treatment was based on the applicant's employment status as a retired teacher in receipt of a pension, rather than his age, and employment status is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, arguing that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code and related statutes concerning a voluntary early retirement program.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to repair deficiencies in his original case and failed to demonstrate that the previous decision conflicted with existing jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his termination was connected to a reported back disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the issues had been fully resolved through Minutes of Settlement in a prior union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application was before the parties when they executed the settlement, which provided the applicant with $7,000 and a favourable employment reference in exchange for a full release.

The Tribunal concluded that the prior proceeding appropriately dealt with the matter and that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 25.5(c).

The applicant argued that the decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure, noting that a request for reconsideration is not an appeal.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by terminating his employment.

After a period of medical leave, the employer proposed a graduated return to work based on an independent medical assessment.

The applicant refused to return to work, insisting he needed to be one hundred percent recovered.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer had proposed a reasonable accommodation and that the applicant had breached his duty to facilitate the accommodation process by refusing to participate.

The applicant, a 47-year-old employee with 27 years of service, alleged age discrimination after being denied participation in an early retirement program negotiated during a plant closure.

The program required employees to meet specific age and service thresholds, which the applicant did not meet.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the early retirement program complied with the Employment Standards Act and its regulations, and was therefore protected from age discrimination claims by section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after suffering a workplace injury and filing a WSIB claim.

He experienced severe harassment and physical threats from co-workers, prompting him to leave the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the harassment was related to a prior dispute over a borrowed chalk line, not his injury or WSIB claim.

As the conduct was not connected to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer and union, alleging discrimination based on colour, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

The allegations centered on his return to work following an injury and a subsequent payroll dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications at a Case Resolution Conference, finding no evidence that the respondents' actions regarding the return to work or the payroll dispute were connected to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.