Allison Greene

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of job applications submitted by the applicant in the six months prior to his resignation.

The respondent argued the documents were relevant to its position that the applicant's resignation was unrelated to an alleged poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding they provided an inferential link to support the respondent's line of defence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations occurred more than one year prior to the application and were not part of a series of incidents, nor was the delay incurred in good faith.

For the remaining timely allegations, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff’s human rights claim from an amended statement of claim arising from his termination following public statements about the Syrian conflict.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the alleged dismissal was based on political opinion, which is not a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s views could not constitute a creed linked to protected grounds such as religion or place of origin.

Accordingly, the human rights claim was allowed to proceed.

However, certain paragraphs of the pleading were struck under Rule 25.11 as irrelevant and prejudicial to a fair trial.

Following a wrongful dismissal summary judgment decision, the court determined the remaining issues of pre‑judgment interest and costs.

The defendant argued that pre‑judgment interest was unavailable because it was not awarded in the earlier endorsement, while alternatively seeking calculation on an instalment basis.

The court held that the issue could properly be determined post‑judgment and awarded pre‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act using the lump sum approach because the employee received only a lump sum statutory payment on termination and would have received a lump sum payment in lieu of notice if proper notice had been given.

On costs, although the successful plaintiff sought $17,500 plus disbursements and HST and relied on an offer to settle, the court found the request excessive given the limited procedural steps and brief summary judgment motion.

Costs were fixed at $10,500 all‑inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, including an allegation of sexual assault by the personal respondent.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of the Crown brief relating to the criminal proceedings against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found that the Crown brief was arguably relevant to the central allegations in the application and ordered the respondent to disclose its entire contents.

Following summary judgment in an employment dispute, the parties disagreed on the proper calculation of mitigation income to deduct from the damages award.

The moving party sought clarification that mitigation should be calculated using net income rather than gross revenue from subsequent earnings.

The responding party argued that the issue had not been raised during the summary judgment motion and could not be altered through a clarification request.

The court held that the question involved new factual and legal determinations and could not be resolved as a simple clarification of the judgment.

The issue was reopened and directed to proceed by motion with supporting evidence and cross-examination.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action following the closure of the defendant’s manufacturing operations.

The court considered the appropriate reasonable notice period, whether overtime should be included in calculating damages, the compensability of lost employment benefits, and whether mitigation income earned during the statutory notice period under the Employment Standards Act should reduce common law damages.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that a 20‑month notice period was appropriate.

The court held that overtime formed an integral component of the employee’s compensation and must be included in damages, and that the employee was entitled to compensation for lost benefits.

Mitigation income earned during the statutory ESA notice period was not deductible from damages beyond ESA minimum entitlements.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The criminal proceeding concluded with the withdrawal of charges and the personal respondent entering into a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

As the issues were no longer before the courts and the respondents did not oppose, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled for mediation.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding involving one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues and available remedies were different and that deferral would cause unnecessary delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact, noting that the criminal proceeding involved the same incident and that the personal respondent's rights in the criminal matter must be considered.

The employer, Three Trilliums Community Place Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The orders found the employer to be a seeking employer for the proxy method of comparison and that it failed to implement a pay equity plan.

The employer argues it is not a public sector employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.