Employment and Labour Law

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a corporate respondent and two individual respondents as parties to an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents argued that a different numbered company was the applicant's true employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the identity of the employer was unclear and required evidence to be heard.

The Tribunal also found it premature to remove the individual respondents, as their conduct regarding the applicant's return to work was a central issue that required a full evidentiary record.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over her 2012 grievance.

The Tribunal found an overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the 2014 grievances, which specifically alleged a failure to accommodate under the Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the applicant could reactivate it if her human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant claimed that a protracted internal workplace investigation exacerbated his mental health, which delayed his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation supporting his claim that his mental health prevented him from filing on time.

Furthermore, pursuing an internal complaint does not justify a delay under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

The applicant, a former bookkeeper and manager at a dental practice, alleged that her employer sexually harassed her on multiple occasions and terminated her employment because she refused his sexual advances.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an extremely hostile and evasive witness who attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding her damages claim.

Conversely, the respondent was found to be forthright and credible.

Due to the lack of independent evidence and the applicant's poor credibility, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations of sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his former employer, Chrysler, and his union, Unifor.

Chrysler terminated the applicant's employment following an investigation into workplace drugs, and the union subsequently withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application against Chrysler was untimely and if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against Chrysler was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant's union filed a Notice of Intervention.

The applicant brought a request for an order to remove the intervenor union, arguing the union did not assist him and he was not employed long enough to become a member.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit, particularly where the applicant seeks reinstatement which may affect the collective agreement.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance proceeding related to the same facts and issues was ongoing.

Finding substantial overlap between the proceedings and noting the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent, her former co-worker/manager, following her termination from employment.

The applicant had previously settled a related application against the respondent and their employer, signing a full and final release.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that attempting to relitigate the pre-settlement allegations was an abuse of process, as the applicant was not under economic duress when she signed the release.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the post-settlement reprisal allegations, as the applicant's evidence was based entirely on speculation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by a co-worker.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the co-worker as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it would be fair to add the co-worker, who had not responded to the request despite being personally served.

The request to add the personal respondent was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance covering the same time period and issues, which was scheduled for mediation and arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights legislation.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel civil action filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Statement of Claim did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies for such infringements.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The applicant, a sole support mother of two young children, filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after her employer refused to continue accommodating her on straight day shifts.

She brought a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order that the respondent continue to schedule her on straight day shifts until the matter is resolved.

The Tribunal found that the Application raised an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and it was just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy to prevent the applicant from having to choose between her job and her children's care.

The request for an interim remedy was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination based on disability, race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the union, noting that the only allegation against it was a failure to act on a reported incident and a refusal to pursue a grievance.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions establishing that the union's inaction was based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, holding that a union's failure to represent an employee on a human rights claim is not, in and of itself, a breach of the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after her hours were reduced and she was subsequently terminated following a workplace altercation involving her mother and the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the reduction in hours was due to the respondent's discomfort with the applicant's demeanour upon her return to work, not her relationship with her mother.

The subsequent termination was found to be justified by a breach of trust resulting from the applicant's negative social media postings about the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a hotel front desk agent, alleged she was sexually harassed by a lifeguard employed by the respondent and that the respondent failed to address her complaints.

The respondent maintained the relationship was consensual and that the applicant never complained of harassment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies and a failure to participate in the respondent's investigation once a formal complaint was made.

The Tribunal concluded the relationship was consensual and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred because she had two pending union grievances whose subject matter overlapped with the application.

The applicant provided a Memorandum of Agreement showing the grievances were withdrawn.

As there were no longer any pending grievances, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they wished to participate in mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the corporate respondent, a federally-incorporated not-for-profit that collects and analyzes data about First Nations peoples.

The respondents argued the organization fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(6) (Census and Statistics) or s. 91(24) (Indians) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the organization's data analysis activities did not constitute First Nations governance, nor did they fall exclusively under the federal statistics power.

The Tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction to process the application.

The applicant, an employee with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after her disability benefits were denied by the plan administrator.

The applicant's union also filed grievances alleging breaches of the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code regarding the same denial of benefits.

The Tribunal, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the pending arbitration hearing, exercised its discretion to defer consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, marital status, and reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discrimination based on ethnic origin and marital status, finding no evidence connecting the alleged unfair treatment to a protected ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal allegations regarding the suspension of the applicant's work email and phone access, and the alleged refusal to complete insurance forms, to proceed to a merits hearing.

The Tribunal also added Wharncliffe Walk-In Clinic Ltd. and Dr. Derek Chiu as respondents, while declining to remove Pellark Dental Centre and the individual respondent.