Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because an outstanding grievance regarding the termination had been referred to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the union would not raise a breach of the Human Rights Code at arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant's association, COTAPSA Inc., filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent raised concerns about the association's role.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, noting its established practice of granting intervenor status to an applicant's bargaining agent in employment discrimination cases absent exceptional circumstances.

The 15-year-old applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment after being unable to apply for a job that required enrollment in full-time post-secondary education.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction, as section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, and the applicant did not raise a Charter challenge to this definition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by his union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

The respondent union argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the employment relationship is federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's employment in the federal public sector and his relationship with his bargaining agent are governed by federal legislation.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.

Although the applicant initially requested the deferral, he later opposed it because the respondent would only deal with the union's counsel regarding the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant, a retired teacher, filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and age discrimination by the respondent school board.

The applicant claimed he was forced to retire due to unfair treatment during a workplace investigation, which he alleged was retaliation for a previous human rights application he had filed.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim as no supporting allegations were presented.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had identified evidence which, if true, could show reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the reprisal allegations and directed that the matter proceed to case management.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance dealing with the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was ongoing and raised identical issues, including allegations of failure to accommodate and claims for Code-related damages.

To avoid duplication of proceedings and inconsistent results, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's related Employment Standards Act claim, which was before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Finding a significant overlap of facts and issues regarding the termination of employment, and noting the OLRB proceeding was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional details about her relationship with the personal respondent and to add an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents objected on the basis that the applicant failed to file a separate schedule of proposed amendments as previously directed.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were reasonably clear from the request and that there was no prejudice to the respondents, who were permitted to file an amended response.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an outstanding grievance filed by her union.

The respondents opposed the reactivation because the grievance process had not concluded and an arbitrator was being sought.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, holding that it was inappropriate to do so while the grievance was still pending, and noted that the applicant could withdraw her grievance if she believed there was no basis for it.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant had filed three grievances through his union alleging unjust suspension, harassment, discrimination, and unjust termination, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant objected to the deferral due to the union's alleged delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap between the application and the grievances, and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after her union required medical documentation to exempt her from picket duties and subsequently disciplined her for attending work during a strike.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the medical documentation the applicant relied upon did not support her requested exemption, and her decision to attend work was a personal choice unrelated to her disability.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

At the commencement of the hearing, it became evident that the respondent had not received the applicant's further written submissions, which argued the release should be set aside due to misrepresentation and the applicant's disabilities.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing to provide the respondent an opportunity to prepare a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, leading to his termination.

The application was deferred pending WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) found the applicant was capable of full-time work and that his termination was due to a safety violation, not his disability.

The applicant appealed to the WSIAT but abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the ARO had appropriately dealt with the substance of the accommodation issue, and that pursuing the termination issue at the Tribunal after abandoning the WSIAT appeal was an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a warning letter from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision deeming the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, sex, creed, and disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had 11 active union grievances dealing with substantially the same facts and human rights issues, including sick leave, accommodation of doctor's notes, and workplace harassment.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance procedure.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

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

To avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

The respondents requested the removal of the individually named respondents from a human rights application alleging workplace reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while individual respondents are routinely removed in discrimination cases where the employer is vicariously liable, allegations of reprisal raise issues of intent that may affect the corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondent opposed the reactivation because the grievance had been referred to arbitration and a hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that under Rule 14.4, the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

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

Applying its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.