Employment and Labour Law

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that not all issues were duplicated and that employer policy allowed concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings and deferred the application to avoid different conclusions about the facts, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application following a decision by an Employment Standards Officer.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but filed their own request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and directed that a half-day preliminary hearing be convened to address the respondents' dismissal request.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple grievances based on the same facts, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it would prevent concurrent proceedings and the risk of contrary findings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceedings.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal requested that the respondents provide particulars regarding their allegations of her failure to perform essential duties, unauthorized absences, and customer complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the responses contained sufficient information for the applicant to reply, and that documentary disclosure obligations would be triggered if a Notice of Hearing is issued.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal sought to add three employees as personal respondents.

The respondent sought to remove an already named personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding no compelling reason to add the employees since the organizational respondent was vicariously liable.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the named personal respondent for the same reason, as the organizational respondent had accepted liability for the conduct.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability regarding a job competition.

The respondent requested deferral of the application because the same facts and human rights issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap and the concurrent jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators over human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in her employment.

A few days prior, she filed a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same factual foundation.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplication of proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged conduct.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding his termination and lack of extended working notice.

The respondent argued the application was barred by two signed releases.

The applicant had also appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application on its own initiative, finding that the OLRB proceedings would likely address the enforceability of the releases and the circumstances of the termination, and deferral was necessary to avoid inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) due to a potential issue with delay in filing.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an unfair labour practice application filed by a union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the OLRB application did not seek similar remedies or raise Code issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues regarding the applicant's termination overlapped significantly between the two proceedings.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following a request for a week off work due to a shoulder injury.

In this interim decision, both parties filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her family physician's clinical notes and records related to the injury for the six months prior to the request for time off.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the medical note provided by the applicant, and permitted the applicant's physician to testify by telephone.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration and subsequent judicial review.

The respondents requested that if re-activated, the Tribunal consider dismissing the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to determine whether the grievance proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights application, amend it, and expedite the hearing.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the union's decision not to proceed with his grievance.

The applicant chose to pursue an internal union appeal, which would not conclude until 2016, but refused to withdraw it to reactivate the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of conflicting determinations remained and that the labour relations proceedings should be resolved first.

The applicant, a retail store manager, developed a work-related wrist injury that restricted her physical abilities.

She alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the duty to accommodate required the respondent to schedule the applicant to work alone and permit her to ask customers to return later if their requests exceeded her physical restrictions.

The Tribunal found that assisting customers was an essential duty of the position.

Since the proposed accommodation would exempt the applicant from performing an essential duty rather than enabling her to perform it, the Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate did not require the respondent to implement this measure.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because an overlapping proceeding under the Employment Standards Act was scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that there was an overlap in the facts between the two proceedings and deferred the application pending the issuance of the OLRB's decision.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent golf club, brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to add a club member as a respondent to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found compelling reasons to add the member as a respondent, noting the novel issue of liability for an equity member's conduct and the timeliness of the request.

The request was granted.

The applicant, who was terminated while on maternity leave during a corporate reorganization, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and did not sign under duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her former employer failed to accommodate her disability and discriminatorily terminated her employment.

Prior to this application, the applicant's union had grieved her termination, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the dismissal was for just cause and that the employer had accommodated her to the point of undue hardship.

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

Finding that the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent relitigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability more than a year after the last alleged incident.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because his union representative advised him he could not file a human rights application while his grievance was ongoing.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the union representative, who denied giving such advice.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer, Tokmakjian, its manager, and Veolia, the company that took over the transit contract.

The applicant's driver's licence had been suspended for medical reasons (depression) and for speeding.

He alleged he was not rehired or accommodated by Tokmakjian, and that Veolia refused to let him write a test or hire him while his licence was suspended.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the respondents' actions and his disability.