Andrew Zabrovsky

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by placing the grievor on an unpaid leave of absence for failing to comply with its mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

The grievor objected to the vaccine on religious grounds but deliberately chose not to apply for an exemption because he believed he should not have to share his religious beliefs with the employer.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's duty to accommodate was not triggered because the grievor failed to make his need for a religious exemption known.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's mandatory vaccination and vaccination disclosure announcements.

The parties appeared before the arbitrator to set a litigation schedule.

The employer raised a preliminary issue regarding the timeliness of the referral to arbitration, which will be argued based on an agreed statement of facts.

The arbitrator also set deadlines for the production of documents and the exchange of particulars, and scheduled a further conference call to determine next steps.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his employer and Morneau Sheppell, the administrator of the employer's sick leave claims.

Morneau Sheppell requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against it, arguing the applicant could not demonstrate adverse treatment based on disability.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to review the correctness or fairness of benefits plan decisions unless there is a connection to a Code-protected ground.

As the applicant provided no evidence connecting the alleged adverse treatment to his disability, the application against Morneau Sheppell was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process concluded on April 1, 2016, when the union withdrew the grievance, making the applicant's July 20, 2016 request to reactivate untimely under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit, finding no good faith reason for the delay, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her supervisor and the school board.

The personal respondent and the union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of related grievances filed by the union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating she did not consent to or have knowledge of the grievance filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate to defer the application for a grievance the applicant did not initiate or consent to.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent.

During a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant presented a written offer to settle, which the respondent orally accepted.

The applicant later claimed there was no settlement, arguing he withdrew his offer, was under duress, and lacked medical capacity to understand the terms.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached, as the essential terms were agreed upon and the applicant intended to form a settlement.

The applicant failed to prove he withdrew the offer or that he was incapacitated or coerced.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process in light of the binding settlement.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant argued she did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence until after the deadline because she was out of town.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received the correspondence before the decision was released but took no steps to contact the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26 and denied the request.

The applicant, a Transit Operator, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his short-term disability benefits and return to work plan.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the insurer, Manulife, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting its claims management to the applicant's disability, and the employer bears the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also dismissed several allegations against the employer for delay, finding they did not form a series of incidents with timely allegations and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the delay.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application in part and resolved outstanding document production requests.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The matter was directed to mediation as agreed by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because grievances had been filed addressing the same incidents.

The respondent supported deferral, noting the grievances would soon proceed to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievances were closed and the issues were different.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the grievance arbitration appeared to be the same as those in the application, and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because of disability, following a workplace injury and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the grievances related to the same circumstances and alleged a failure to accommodate.

As the arbitrator was empowered to deal with the human rights allegations and the arbitration was scheduled to commence shortly, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being excluded from a volunteer tent at a local food festival.

The applicant, who volunteered for an exhibitor rather than the festival itself, claimed the exclusion was an extension of a previous ban from the respondent health centre.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was excluded because she was not a festival volunteer, and there was no evidence linking the exclusion to her disability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the individual respondent's request for anonymization, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the open justice principle.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability be deferred pending the conclusion of her related claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that there was a potential for significant delay in the WSIB proceedings and it was unclear whether those proceedings would address the substance of the human rights allegations, including the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated during his probationary period because of his colour.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's assertion that his colour was a factor in his termination was mere speculation, as he could point to no evidence linking his termination to his colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her volunteer work.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for early production of documents and the respondents' request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard disclosure rules triggered by a Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request for a summary hearing without providing reasons, as permitted by its Rules of Procedure.

The application will proceed to an in-person hearing regarding the remaining allegation.

The applicant, a property owner, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the Town of Ajax and its by-law officers during property standards investigations.

The applicant claimed an officer used the phrase 'you people' and that subsequent enforcement actions, including multiple visits and the service of a summons, constituted harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the alleged discriminatory comments were made or that the Town's actions were influenced by the applicant's race or ethnic origin.

The Tribunal concluded the respondents were appropriately fulfilling their duties in response to neighbour complaints.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing the unavailability of her lawyer and a witness.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant failed to identify the lawyer or confirm they were retained, and failed to identify the witness or explain the relevance of their evidence.

The Tribunal emphasized that under its Practice Direction on Scheduling, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances, which were not established here.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the CHRC proceeding.

As the applicant did not oppose deferral and the respondent supported it, the Tribunal deferred the Application due to overlapping factual and legal issues.