Sheri Price

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to make pension and benefit contributions for the grievor during an approved leave of absence.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make the grievor whole in respect of pension contributions for the period in question, either directly or by providing funds to buy back pensionable service.

The Employer was also ordered to reimburse the grievor for eligible benefit expenses incurred during the leave upon provision of receipts.

The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed due to the grievor's refusal to participate in the rehearing of her case before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The original arbitrator became unable to continue, necessitating a rehearing.

The grievor failed to respond to scheduling requests and indicated she was pursuing a related application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario instead.

The arbitrator found that allowing the matter to continue in the face of the grievor's ongoing refusal to participate would be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

Following a prior decision, the Arbitrator convened a conference call to address the status of the grievance.

The parties were encouraged to pursue settlement discussions.

The Union was directed to confirm within 14 days whether the grievance would be withdrawn, failing which a further conference call would be convened to hear submissions on the employer's request to dismiss the grievance.

The Employer requested a variance of a previous order requiring the provision of witness particulars, citing obstacles arising from the Covid-19 health crisis.

The Arbitrator granted the request, setting new deadlines for the Employer to provide witness names and anticipated evidence relevant to its request for damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The Arbitrator also confirmed that the hearing scheduled for April 8 and 9, 2020, could not proceed in person due to the pandemic, and scheduled a further conference call to determine whether the hearing would proceed remotely or be adjourned.

In a termination grievance arising from two workplace investigations into the grievor's conduct, the union sought disclosure of the investigation files.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to disclose the investigation reports and any documents collected or created as part of the investigations into complaints from two individuals.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be used for the arbitration and not be shared electronically.

The Employer requested additional particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of workplace harassment prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to provide specific details concerning allegations of a false accusation of drug use, discriminatory administration of sick days, unfavourable shift scheduling, and damage to the grievor's reputation, to ensure the Employer knows the case it has to meet.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding a condominium meeting held on a religious holiday.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely repeated submissions made at the hearing and failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their human rights applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as they did not present new determinative evidence, but rather attempted to reargue their case and repair perceived deficiencies.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicants, three Muslim condominium unit owners, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and property management company discriminated against them on the basis of creed by holding a special owners' meeting on the evening of Eid-ul-Azha.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not intentionally schedule the meeting on the religious holiday and did not treat the applicants in a distinct and disadvantageous manner.

Furthermore, even if the scheduling had an adverse effect on the applicants' ability to observe their faith, the respondents reasonably accommodated their creed-based needs by allowing them to participate and vote by proxy.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the first day, citing a last-minute breakdown in the relationship with her legal representative and a loss of confidence.

The respondent opposed the request due to the inconvenience and expense of having witnesses and an advisor present.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden breakdown of the representative-client relationship constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment, while warning the applicant to be diligent in retaining new counsel or preparing to self-represent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her based on race, colour, place of origin, and/or ethnic origin by refusing to show or rent an apartment to her after learning she was from the Caribbean.

The respondent claimed he decided not to rent the apartment because he had decided to sell the property.

The Tribunal found the respondent's explanation lacked credibility and concluded that the applicant's place of origin was a factor in the refusal.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to complete human rights training.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because one of its proposed witnesses was expecting a baby and unavailable to testify.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested more than 14 days after scheduling require extraordinary circumstances.

The inability of a single witness to attend a multi-day hearing does not justify adjourning the entire hearing, as the scheduled time can be used to hear from other witnesses.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability between 2011 and 2013, and that certain 'wayfinder' work was available for five years prior to his placement in that role in July 2015.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the 2011-2013 allegations, finding it would substantially alter the nature of the case and expand the scope of the hearing.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to pursue the allegation that wayfinder work was available prior to July 2015 as a further particular of his existing claim that the respondent failed to accommodate him from May 2014 onwards.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation discriminated against him and his girlfriend based on race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's handling of a noise complaint during the applicant's rental of the party room, which resulted in restrictions on his future use of the room.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond bald assertions to link the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant, a medical marijuana user, alleged that the Mayor of Ottawa discriminated against him by publicly asking medical marijuana users not to expose others to second-hand smoke in establishments.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the Mayor's comments to the media constituted a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the comments were not discriminatory.

The Mayor merely appealed to users not to expose others to second-hand smoke, which does not impose a disadvantage or violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent employer brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings to dismiss parts of the applicant's human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, age discrimination, and a poisoned work environment culminating in her termination.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of age discrimination were tied to the timely termination allegation.

Furthermore, the allegations of sexual harassment formed the basis of a poisoned work environment claim, which existed within the one-year period prior to filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to an urgent medical situation involving her counsel's immediate family member, as well as the applicant's own need to travel out of the country to attend to a very ill family member.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal found these to be extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment and granted the request, directing the Registrar to reschedule the hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness had to attend important medical appointments with a family member.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to adjourn the hearing and directed the Registrar's office to contact the parties for rescheduling.

The applicant, a black man of African origin, alleged racial discrimination in employment after being excluded from a collaborative pilot project by the respondent organizations.

The respondents claimed the exclusion was due to the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the unworkability of the arrangement.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the factual disputes regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion required a full hearing to resolve.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because their counsel had a conflicting civil trial.

The respondent and intervenor consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing to July 12 and 13, 2016, with corresponding adjustments to pre-hearing disclosure deadlines.