Adrienne Liang

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment based on race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, for delay, or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the applicant's termination, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations in a prior unfair labour practice proceeding.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) and could not be dismissed summarily for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal against his employer, a supervisor, and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding family status accommodation and reprisal, finding the applicant had withdrawn from the accommodation process and provided no evidence of reprisal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, as there was no evidence its actions were discriminatory.

The allegation that the applicant was required to work outside his medical restrictions will proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and vocational associations because of disability.

The Tribunal directed the matter to a Summary Hearing to determine if the applicant could prove a link between the respondents' actions and the ground of disability.

At the Summary Hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application against all respondents.

The respondents consented, and the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, closing the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding involving the same facts and issues was ongoing.

The respondents and the union supported deferring the application.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to apply human rights law and that deferral serves the orderly administration of justice.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to address new allegations raised in the applicant's Reply regarding a workplace transfer and a performance appraisal.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request under Rule 1.7(c), allowing the respondent to file an amended Response and setting deadlines for the amended pleadings.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability for failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The applicant also filed two grievances with her union regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the concurrent grievance proceedings to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation or advances, claiming she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and that the employer covered it up while the union protected the co-worker.

The union requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance proceeding dealt with substantially the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear human rights issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and sex regarding her termination.

She also filed a grievance alleging dismissal without just cause, which her union referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent agreed with deferral, and no other parties made submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the employer failed to accommodate her workplace injury and forced her to retire early, and that the union failed to provide proper representation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had ongoing WSIB appeals regarding the same injury.

Finding a significant overlap in issues and remedies between the WSIB process and the human rights application, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor participation in a compressed work week pilot project, assigning him less meaningful work, and destroying his files.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the compressed work week was a trial project the grievor had no entitlement to join, the work assignments fell within management rights, and the destruction of files did not engage collective agreement rights.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, ancestry, and language regarding the university's hiring practices.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that allegations predating June 10, 2007, were untimely.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's delay in filing the complaint was not incurred in good faith, as the medical evidence regarding his throat cancer did not explain his inability to pursue the complaint after late 2005.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Ministry applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the Ministry breached the collective agreement by failing to create and fill a single Probation Officer 3 (PO3) position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference, as a literal interpretation would have led to an unrealistic result with no sensible purpose.

The union filed a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, intimidation, harassment, and discrimination.

The employer requested particulars of these allegations, which the union had previously agreed to provide but failed to do so.

The Vice-Chair directed the union to provide full written particulars and copies of documents by June 7, 2010.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred pending an ongoing grievance and that allegations prior to July 10, 2006, be dismissed because they were resolved by minutes of settlement.

The deferral request became moot when the applicant agreed to withdraw the grievance.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events up to and including July 10, 2006, finding that the prior minutes of settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to maintain a past practice of providing free parking when employees were relocated to a new building.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was improperly expanding the scope of the grievance by adding health and safety claims and allegations of differential treatment, and that the failure to provide free parking did not breach the collective agreement.

The arbitrator upheld the preliminary objection, finding the new claims were beyond the scope of the original grievance and that the collective agreement contained no provision requiring the employer to provide free parking.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to restrict a Conservation Officer to clerical duties and deny him his firearm and badge pending an independent medical examination (IME).

The employer argued the grievor's past behaviour, including a firearm storage incident and angry outbursts, raised safety concerns justifying the IME under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the grievor was unable to perform his duties for health reasons, as the past incidents were treated as culpable misconduct rather than health issues.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to restore the grievor to full duties.