Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on race, creed, and disability.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations relating to events from 2011 and earlier due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents ending with the applicant's 2014 termination, as the earlier incidents were linked to race and creed, while the termination was linked solely to disability.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to 2011 and earlier.

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

The organizational respondent had terminated the applicant's employment, and the applicant's union filed a grievance seeking damages for human rights breaches.

The union later withdrew the grievance, but the applicant appealed that decision.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the determination of the applicant's appeal to the union and the potential completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and accommodation based on disability.

The respondent argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success, was delayed, and dealt with matters already settled before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding increased scrutiny and termination following the disclosure of a disability required a full hearing to assess the evidence.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied, and the applicant was granted leave to amend the application.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, requesting it be consolidated with her first application.

The respondent did not oppose consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications but deferred the second application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process before the Grievance Settlement Board, which was dealing with the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity, leading to her dismissal.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal, which was amended to include a claim for $200,000 in damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code based on the same allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for post-retirement benefits under a collective agreement.

The terms of the collective agreement had been determined by a Board of Arbitration following an interest arbitration.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Board of Arbitration had jurisdiction to apply the Code, appropriately dealt with the substance of the dispute, and that the application constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.

The applicant, who had a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after his employer declared him surplus following a workforce adjustment initiative.

The applicant refused to attend the hearing, requesting a decision based on written materials.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability did not entitle him to bypass surplus procedures and be placed directly into a permanent position.

The employer appropriately accommodated the applicant by deferring his surplus job search period while he was medically unable to participate.

The application was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicant, a female electrician, alleged that she was denied a promotion to a supervisory position because of her sex and as a reprisal for previously complaining about gender-based harassment.

During the merits hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the successful male candidates had superior paper qualifications and that there was no evidence linking the hiring committee's decision to the applicant's sex or her prior harassment complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Personal Support Worker, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after her employment was terminated following an incident where a resident suffered a fractured femur during a transfer.

The applicant claimed she was falsely blamed for the incident in reprisal for a previous human rights application.

She also alleged failure to accommodate her knee disability when assigned to a floor requiring more walking.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success for the reprisal claim as the termination was based on independent investigation findings.

The Tribunal also found the floor assignment was consistent with a prior accommodation settlement and no updated medical restrictions were provided.

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

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

The applicant opposed deferral because the arbitration hearing was not scheduled to begin until January 2016.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were largely the same, particularly regarding the applicant's termination.

Applying its usual approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against her employer and unions alleging discrimination based on disability, failure to accommodate, and failure to properly represent her in grievances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her applications to include recent events including her termination.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against OPSEU and most allegations against Unifor as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence that the unions' actions were discriminatory.

The allegations against the employer and the remaining allegations against Unifor regarding post-termination events were allowed to proceed to a hearing, where the potential application of section 45.1 of the Code will be considered.

The applicant, a bus driver, was terminated after being observed urinating in front of his bus and committing traffic violations.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that diuretic medication for his high blood pressure caused an urgent need to urinate.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability (hypertension), he failed to establish a link between the medication and his urgent need to urinate.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's attempt to conceal its knowledge of the applicant's medication indicated that his disability was a factor in the termination decision.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied lost wages and reinstatement because the applicant would have been terminated regardless of the Code breach.

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

The applicant's union had filed a grievance alleging workplace assault, harassment, and bullying based on the same events.

The Tribunal found that the central issues would be addressed in the grievance process and that concurrent proceedings could lead to conflicting factual conclusions.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under Rule 14.1 to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his short and long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 under the collective agreement.

The application was filed approximately 10.5 months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for the conclusion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal held that waiting for another proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship after being removed from a project and replaced with an American employee.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the civil claim did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil claim due to significant factual overlap and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged that photocopier emissions triggered her asthma and environmental sensitivities, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had previously denied her claim, finding no causal link between the emissions and her medical condition.

The Tribunal found that the factual issues regarding the cause of the applicant's medical conditions were central to both proceedings.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant, who has a mobility impairment, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer.

She claimed the employer failed to accommodate her needs by providing insufficient taxi chits and denying remote computer access, and that the manner of her termination was discriminatory.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to communicate a disability-related need for additional taxi chits or remote computer access, and that the employer had reasonably responded to her requests.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination process disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of her disability.

The application was dismissed.

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

The application was deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant failed to file a request to proceed within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.4.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

As the applicant did not respond or request to proceed, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Case Manager's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only addressed the applicant's temporary compensable injury and did not deal with the central issue of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's permanent restrictions and discriminatorily terminated his employment for frustration of contract.