4 total
Respondent's pre-response request for particulars denied as application contained sufficient detail to permit a response.
The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for particulars and an extension of time to file its Response, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail to establish a nexus to the alleged grounds of discrimination.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained adequate detail regarding the alleged intimidation, differential treatment, and termination for the respondent to discern the allegations and file a Response.
The Tribunal reiterated its general rule that respondents must file a completed response prior to raising preliminary issues like requests for particulars, absent exceptional circumstances.
Pay Equity Office granted party status to make submissions on jurisdictional challenge to Review Officer's authority.
The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for standing to participate as a party in applications filed by two colleges challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to issue orders regarding their pay equity plans in the absence of a complaint.
The colleges opposed the motion.
The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties under s. 32(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, which requires a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case.
Finding that the PEO had a substantial interest in the broader policy outcome and the impact of the jurisdictional interpretation on its authority and practice, the Tribunal granted the PEO party status for the purpose of making submissions on the jurisdictional issue.
Construction grievance adjourned sine die pending resolution of underlying jurisdictional dispute complaint.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.
The employer and the intervening Millwrights argued the grievance was inarbitrable as it raised a jurisdictional dispute.
The Board held that while the grievance alleged a collective agreement violation, the underlying issue was a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment.
The Board adjourned the grievance sine die pending the filing and disposition of a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.
Union certified without vote; employee petition rejected due to evidentiary gaps and foreman's signature.
The applicant union applied for certification and filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification.
A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.
The Board found that the petition lacked evidence of custody during a period of its circulation and was signed by a foreman.
Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certification.
