Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that its core business is federally regulated and therefore all its employees fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that because the respondent engages in extra-provincial transportation, its operations are a federal undertaking under section 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment to include additional narrative details.

The respondents opposed the amendments and requested the removal of two directors as personal respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding they merely amplified the existing narrative without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents, noting their alleged individual conduct was central to the application and the corporate respondent had not assumed liability or demonstrated capacity to fulfill potential remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following her termination and subsequent grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that judicial immunity applied to the arbitrator who chaired the arbitration panel and dismissed the application against him.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by conference call to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, for abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant requested that his human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The respondent City supported the deferral, while the personal respondent opposed it.

The Tribunal found that there was an overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievances.

In accordance with its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the termination of his employment.

Prior to this, his union had filed a grievance on his behalf, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer lacked just cause for dismissal and awarded severance and wages, but declined reinstatement.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had concurrent jurisdiction to decide human rights issues and that the legal issue decided was essentially the same as the one before the Tribunal.

Concluding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the same dispute, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and did not set out a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a summary hearing and dismissed the respondent's request, directing that the matter proceed in the normal course.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, sex, and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because of an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant objected.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming incorrect payment of her salary while receiving workplace safety and insurance benefits.

A union grievance dealing with the same issues was pending before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application until the conclusion of the arbitration, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The personal respondents requested to be removed as parties to a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had not assumed liability for the personal respondents' actions, nor indicated it would satisfy any remedy ordered against them.

Furthermore, the applicant made specific allegations regarding the conduct of both personal respondents that would not be adequately addressed if they were removed.

The applicant, a security guard employed by Securitas at the National Gallery of Canada, alleged discrimination after his position was eliminated during a restructuring.

Both respondents requested dismissal on the basis that they are federal undertakings outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that Securitas' provision of security services at the Gallery did not fall within provincial jurisdiction, as the duties were ordinary security functions and not integral to a federal undertaking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the National Gallery, finding it to be a federal undertaking and noting it was not the applicant's employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was terminated in reprisal for being a union steward.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, raising jurisdictional concerns including timeliness and the absence of specific Code-related acts.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

Because the grievance raised the identical issues regarding the applicant's termination and the arbitrator had already issued a bottom-line decision reinstating the applicant, the Tribunal deferred the application until the arbitrator issues full reasons.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of her Record of Employment, timesheets, schedules, and emails.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the production of the ROE, timesheets, schedules, and specific emails between the applicant and a named individual.

The request for a general review of the applicant's email account was denied as a fishing expedition.

The applicant, a bus driver for OC Transpo, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his attempts to secure accommodation through the City of Ottawa's priority placement program.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking and its labour relations are governed by federal legislation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rights to priority placement were derived from his collective agreement and his ongoing status as an OC Transpo employee.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and sex.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

A case management conference call was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual solicitation, gender identity, gender expression, and record of offences.

She claimed she was not provided with gender-appropriate sleeping accommodations at an out-of-town event and was subjected to harassment by co-workers.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was inconsistent.

The Tribunal preferred the respondents' evidence that the applicant left her post early and was informed her services were no longer required before the alleged incidents occurred.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same facts and issues.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a former employee and union chairperson, alleged reprisal and age discrimination against the respondent credit union following her termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to union activities and collective agreement rights, not rights protected under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence linking her treatment to her age.

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

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the respondents in her human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of Ramada Worldwide Inc. as a respondent, as the hotel was independently owned and operated.

The Tribunal also added 722496 Ontario Limited, Mayfield GP No. 1, Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc., and 5400 Dixie Road Inc. as respondents, finding they were owners or operators of the hotel at the material time and could be liable for the alleged conduct.

The applicant, a male personal support worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, gender identity, age, and disability, as well as reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding the respondent's practice of assigning male workers only to male patients, and his allegation that his termination was a reprisal for filing the application, had a reasonable prospect of success and would proceed to a merits hearing.

The remaining allegations regarding age discrimination, disability discrimination based on work-related stress, and reprisal for non-Code complaints were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, raising the same issues of bullying, death threats, and termination that he had previously raised in an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The ESA complaint had been resolved through a settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the settlement of the ESA complaint constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and allowing it to proceed would undermine the finality of litigation.