Pamela Chapman

The applicant, a student with a physical disability affecting her left hand, alleged that the respondent college discriminated against her by failing to properly accommodate her needs, leading to her withdrawal from the program.

The Tribunal found that the college fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate by providing assistive devices, modifying evaluations, and tolerating significant absences.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant failed to fulfill her duty to cooperate in the accommodation process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and a Vice-chair.

The applicant alleged new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, and reasonable apprehension of bias, including claims that the adjudicator was practicing law without a license and had a conflict of interest due to a past neighbourhood connection.

The Tribunal found no new determinative facts, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), one of its Vice-chairs, and the Ministry of the Attorney General, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the handling of her ongoing human rights complaint against a school board.

The applicant alleged the Vice-chair showed bias during mediation and the HRTO improperly denied interim relief.

The HRTO determined it had jurisdiction to assess whether the application was properly before it without creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and a collateral attack on an ongoing proceeding.

The adjudicator also noted that the allegations related to adjudicative functions, which are protected by adjudicative immunity and do not constitute 'services' under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and one of its Vice-chairs, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of services during a previous hearing.

The HRTO determined that the actions complained of were adjudicative in nature and therefore protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also found the application to be an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate matters already decided.

The HRTO concluded it could dismiss the application without giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and one of its Vice-Chairs, alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin after his previous complaints were dismissed.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal could not adjudicate the new complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias and sought the appointment of a disinterested person under the Public Officers Act.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to determine whether an application is properly before it, even when named as a respondent, without giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to relitigate the earlier decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference and failed to file required disclosure materials.

The respondents attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received proper notice of the conference and dismissed the application due to her failure to attend and pursue the proceeding.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay $1,168.00 in vacation pay to a former employee.

The employer argued that the employee had taken paid time off that should be characterized as vacation, including a period over Christmas where the employee was on-call for snow removal.

The Board found that because the employee was required to be available for work during the Christmas period, it could not be considered vacation.

The Board upheld the Officer's order, noting the lack of clear agreements or records regarding vacation time.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed according to the settlement, with $10,000 paid to the employee, $11,648.90 returned to the employer, and $1,030.90 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The matter was terminated.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay $248.80 in vacation pay to the responding employee.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employer nor the employee attended.

The Ministry of Labour appeared.

As the employer brought forward no evidence to establish a basis for setting aside the Order to Pay, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the Order to Pay, directing the release of funds held in trust to the employee.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages, vacation pay, and reimbursement for unauthorized deductions to a former employee.

The dispute centered on the calculation of wages under a commission-based compensation system paid one month in arrears.

The Board recalculated the amounts owed by deducting an advance paid in the first month of the commission arrangement from the final commissions earned.

The Board allowed the application in part, amending the order to pay to reflect the recalculated amount of $2,678.70 owed to the employee.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay for unpaid wages, termination pay, and vacation pay.

The employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

As the party seeking to establish that the amounts were not due, the employer bore the onus of proof.

Due to its failure to attend and call evidence, the application for review was dismissed and the Order to Pay was upheld.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $449.28 paid to the employee and $249.39 returned to the employer.

The matter was terminated pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsidered its decision dated April 7, 1999, and amended paragraph 74(d) to order the employer to continue its practice regarding jump calls as it existed prior to the certification application, enforcing rules without discrimination based on the city of licensing.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its applications against Maxi, Provigo Distribution Inc., and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (OCAPDD) is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

OCAPDD provides residential group homes, day programs, and support services to persons with developmental disabilities.

The Board found that the residential programs and several day programs provide significant observation, care, and treatment to medically fragile and high-need clients.

Given the protective purpose of the HLDAA and the integrated nature of the agency's services, the Board advised the Minister that OCAPDD as a whole is a hospital under the Act.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing paragraph (d) of the Board's previous order and remitting it for reconsideration, the Board directed the parties to file submissions.

The Board specifically invited comments on the Court's suggested amendment regarding the employer's practice with respect to taking jump calls.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding her claim for unpaid wages.

The Board directed the Ministry of Labour to provide particulars concerning other employee claims against the same employer to determine the applicability of section 82.3(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The matter was adjourned pending receipt of this information.

The applicant union requested the termination of the proceedings via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and terminated the proceedings.