Caroline Rowan

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the matter had been settled in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, dismissing allegations predating the May 10, 2005 settlement release, as they had been appropriately dealt with under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed allegations concerning a November 2005 job posting to proceed, finding they related to a new event and did not constitute an abuse of process.

Following the ruling, the parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for one year.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were previously resolved through grievance settlements and a full and final release signed by the applicant in 2006.

The applicant claimed he entered the settlements under duress and while suffering from a drug dependency that clouded his judgment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claim of drug dependency or duress.

Concluding that the prior settlements appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and ensure finality.

Les requérants ont demandé au Tribunal d'ordonner une enquête en vertu de l'article 44 du Code des droits de la personne pour déterminer si les intimés avaient communiqué à des tiers des renseignements sur leur appartenance à la religion raelienne.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande d'enquête, concluant qu'elle n'était pas nécessaire pour obtenir les éléments de preuve.

Le Tribunal a plutôt ordonné aux intimés de produire les documents et renseignements pertinents concernant ces communications.

The complainant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability, a fractured scapula sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

After requesting a medical leave of absence, her employment was terminated ostensibly for misconduct, despite no prior complaints.

The respondents failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the termination was at least in part related to her disability, breaching section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay special and general damages.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested that the complaint against Rénozone Express Inc. and Mario Labre proceed by way of a written hearing.

The corporate respondent had failed to participate in the proceedings to date, including an initial conference call, and neither respondent had filed pleadings.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to issue a Notice of Written Hearing pursuant to section 5.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, subject to any objections from the parties.

The Commission requested that the human rights complaint be disposed of by way of a written hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the corporate respondent had not participated in the proceedings and that correspondence had been sent to the home address of its owner, who was in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the Commission to serve notice of the proceedings to the corporate respondent's last registered address and provide a Corporation Profile Report before considering the request for a written hearing.

The applicant requested that the Board deem the responding party, Urtech Electric Inc., to have accepted all facts stated in the grievance referral and section 69/1(4) application due to its failure to respond.

The other responding parties objected, noting that Urtech Electric Inc. had been dissolved prior to the commencement of the proceedings.

The Board deferred consideration of the applicant's request to the panel assigned to hear the matters.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Several employees objected to the results, complaining about the short notice period between notification and the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, noting that the Labour Relations Act requires a vote within five days of the application and there is no requirement for the union to provide advance notice or hold information meetings.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The union grieved the termination of an employee with 37 years of seniority who was discharged for failing to wear a fall arrest harness on a construction site, contrary to the employer's safety policy.

The union conceded the breach but argued the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while a severe disciplinary response was warranted given the employee's prior safety warnings and careless attitude toward the policy, discharge was excessive in light of his lengthy seniority.

The Board substituted a five-day suspension for the discharge.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant requested reconsideration to extend the time to review an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The Board dismissed the request because it had already granted the extension in a previous decision, noting that the applicant appeared to have misunderstood a subsequent Board decision regarding the responding party's own request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party security services company.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

Although the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it agreed that the ballots cast should be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Counsel for an intervening union requested an extension of the deadline for filing a response and/or intervention.

The Board granted the request, extending the deadline and the terminal date to December 21, 2001, and directed the responding parties to post the decision adjacent to the Notice to Employees.

The Board received correspondence and materials from the applicant regarding its trade union status, but noted that these had not been delivered to the other parties as required by Rule 33 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver the materials forthwith and set a schedule for responding and reply submissions.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant union requested that the Board deem the responding party, Urtech Electric Inc., to have accepted all facts stated in a grievance referral and a related employer application pursuant to Rule 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, as the responding party failed to respond to either proceeding.

The Board directed the other parties to file submissions in response to the request within two days, with the applicant permitted to file reply submissions within two days thereafter.

The applicant union filed two applications against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to settle the grievance.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, that it had violated the agreement, and ordering the responding party to pay $10,000 in damages to the applicant.