Andrew Pinto

The applicant, a university faculty member alleging sex discrimination in her promotion process, sought production of documents relating to a male colleague who was promoted around the same time.

The respondent and intervenors opposed production, arguing the documents were irrelevant and protected by confidentiality privilege.

The Tribunal ordered production of the male colleague's curriculum vitae, salary information, redacted reference letters, and redacted transmittal letter, finding them relevant as comparator evidence and not privileged under the Wigmore test.

Student course evaluations were not ordered produced as the applicant's own evaluations were not in evidence.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, the Tribunal revoked a previous order granting intervener status to the Faculty Association after clarifying that the individual who filed the request did not represent the Association.

The Tribunal also established a timetable for written submissions regarding the applicant's request for production of a colleague's promotion file and salary information, directing that notice be given to the affected third party.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and several individuals.

The corporate respondent filed for bankruptcy protection and argued the application was stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant requested to amend her application to withdraw all monetary claims against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and held that because the applicant was no longer seeking monetary remedies, she was not a creditor with a claim provable in bankruptcy, and therefore the proceedings were not stayed.

The Tribunal also addressed requests to withdraw against two individual respondents, a request to expedite, and a request for document production.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents, Iswood Holdings Inc. and Keel Staff Enterprises Inc., after discovering that the original corporate respondent did not own all three franchise locations involved.

The adjudicator granted the motion, noting the companies were intermingled and the president of all three was aware of the misconception.

Subsequently, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent for lack of evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed this motion as premature, ruling that the respondent must either elect whether to call evidence or wait until all evidence is heard before bringing a motion for non-suit.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment, the Commission and the complainant moved to add two corporate respondents who owned other franchise locations.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding the respondents were aware of the misconception regarding ownership and the operations were intermingled.

The respondents also moved for a non-suit to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondent.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion without prejudice, requiring the respondents to elect whether to call evidence before a non-suit motion could be heard, as the tribunal needed to hear all evidence to determine his liability.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of a civil court registrar, an unclassified employee, alleging violations of the collective agreement regarding scheduling, work assignments, and anti-union discrimination.

The core issue was whether the grievor was entitled to be paid for 7.25 hours per day regardless of the actual hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the substantive grievances, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excluded unclassified employees from the 'normal hours of work' provision.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging anti-union animus and unjust discipline related to the grievor's practice of incorrectly recording 7.25 hours on his timesheets contrary to employer instructions, and regarding the summer lay-off process.

The Complainant brought preliminary motions to amend his human rights complaint to add allegations of reprisal and to compel the production of certain documents.

The Board of Inquiry allowed the motion to amend, finding it had jurisdiction to add reprisal allegations from a separate, unreferred complaint where the Commission and Respondents consented or did not object.

The motion for production was dismissed as premature, as the Respondents undertook to produce the requested yearbooks and relevant portions of personnel files, though the Board limited the scope of the personnel file disclosure to specific dates.

The union filed a group grievance claiming standby pay for maintenance employees designated as emergency workers during the 1996 OPS strike.

The employees were not called to work but argued they had to remain ready.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it was covered by a prior master settlement award that withdrew all grievances requesting premium payments for emergency workers unless a commitment to pay was made.

The employer's letter only committed to premium payments if work was actually performed, which did not occur.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of former employees of a psychiatric hospital unit, alleging they were denied the right to be surplused and exercise bumping rights upon the unit's privatization.

The parties agreed that this grievance was covered by a comprehensive settlement of all Appendix 9 (Reasonable Accommodation) grievances, which provided a $2,000,000 lump sum but allocated no money to these specific grievors.

As all such grievances were withdrawn under the settlement, this grievance was dismissed.

The parent union applied under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its trusteeship over the local union for an additional six months.

The trusteeship was initially imposed due to serious financial and operational concerns, including significant debt, financial mismanagement, and internal political turmoil.

The Board found that the administrator had made reasonable, good-faith efforts to address these issues and that a minimum six-month extension was necessary to complete the restructuring and ensure a smooth return to local autonomy.

The application for extension was granted.