Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal, including a claim for a bonus and damages for emotional distress.

On a motion to settle a discovery plan, the plaintiff sought extensive financial records from the defendant to calculate his bonus entitlement.

The court found the request disproportionate at the pre-discovery stage and ordered the defendant to produce only its financial statements.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to produce his medical records, as he conceded they were relevant to his claim for emotional distress.

The defendant, a real estate salesperson, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, also a salesperson at the same Re/Max brokerage, claimed she was the defendant's employee or dependent contractor for 17 years.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the Trust in Real Estate Services Act prohibits a salesperson from employing another salesperson or accepting remuneration from anyone other than their brokerage.

Furthermore, the objective facts demonstrated the parties merely had an agreement to share commissions as independent contractors, and the plaintiff did not meet the common law tests for employment or dependent contractor status.

The applicant, an early childhood educator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

While four and a half months pregnant, she experienced back pain after being temporarily assigned to a pre-school room requiring heavier lifting.

When she requested a return to her regular toddler room duties and provided a medical note restricting her lifting, the respondent daycare refused, told her to leave, and subsequently terminated her employment.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent infringed the applicant's rights by failing to address her accommodation request and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal awarded $6,770 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a security guard, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her medical restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance had been filed regarding the same facts and issues.

Despite opposition from both the applicant and the corporate respondent, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability, had the ability to meet any remedy, and there were no specific allegations against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents from the application.

The applicant sought to further defer her human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review of an arbitrator's award that upheld her denial of tenure and termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal should no longer defer and should determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and arbitration process was still ongoing due to the judicial review application and ordered the application deferred pending its completion.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being denied a department head position in favour of a younger candidate.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this stage and directed that the matter proceed to a full two-day hearing.

The applicant, a restricted temporary employee at The Beer Store, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed his hours were reduced to zero after he requested a brief accommodation for a minor soft tissue injury, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and co-workers.

He further alleged that a letter requiring him to clarify his availability for Sunday shifts was a reprisal for filing his human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the reduction in hours was due to the seasonal nature of the work and the applicant's low seniority status, not his accommodation request.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of harassment or that the respondent's request for clarification regarding Sunday availability was a reprisal.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights allegations of harassment spanning July to November 2012, arguing they had been appropriately dealt with in a prior union grievance pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that unlike a previous grievance settlement in this matter, there were no signed Minutes of Settlement establishing the scope of the resolution, and the applicant's agreement to the withdrawal of the grievance was in dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, concluding that the issue could not be resolved without hearing evidence and making credibility findings.

The applicant, a former sous chef, attended her former workplace to collect unpaid wages.

When she complained to the restaurant owner that she had not been paid in full, the owner yelled gender-based obscenities at her.

The Tribunal found that the owner's conduct constituted sexual harassment contrary to section 7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

As the owner was a directing mind of the restaurant, the corporate respondent was also held liable.

The respondents, who did not attend the hearing, were ordered to pay $1,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondents from an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and granted the request, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, the employees were acting within the scope of their duties, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After the Tribunal inquired about the status of the grievance, the union advised that the parties had entered into minutes of settlement resolving all disputes, including the Tribunal application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiries.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant and respondent both filed Requests for Order During Proceeding in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant sought to amend the Application to include further job competitions, which the Tribunal denied because the proposed amendments were unclear and the request was made too close to the scheduled hearing date.

The respondent sought to dismiss an allegation relating to a 2008 job competition on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding the allegation was filed well outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and the applicant provided no explanation to justify waiving the delay.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal by her employer and union.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the union's alleged inaction to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal allegation against the employer to proceed, finding that if the applicant could prove her workload was unfairly increased after she filed previous human rights complaints, an inference of reprisal could be drawn.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

Although the original grievance was settled, the intervenor union had filed another grievance on the applicant's behalf regarding an unpaid suspension.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings continued to overlap significantly and the arbitration was already well advanced.

The request to reactivate the application was denied and the deferral was continued.

The applicant alleged sex discrimination after applying for a bartender position advertised for females only.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied a request to intervene by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), finding it would add cost and delay without assisting the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also declined to order the applicant to produce five years of financial records at this stage, though it noted the applicant bears the burden of proving pecuniary losses and mitigation.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination after a workplace dispute with his supervisor, which led to a drug and alcohol test and a temporary suspension.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information, the applicant failed to establish any connection between the employer's actions and a Code ground or an attempt to enforce his rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim because the alleged retaliation was for assisting a co-worker with employment insurance and filing a WSIB claim, neither of which involved asserting rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of various documents, including other employees' files and the respondent's entire policy book, finding the requests overly broad and lacking arguable relevance.

Finally, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's complaint about the applicant's uncivil language in her submissions, accepting the self-represented applicant's apology and reminding her of the obligation to act courteously.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on reprisal, claiming he was harassed by a co-worker and lacked management support.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not connect the harassment to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as general allegations of unfairness without a link to a prohibited ground do not constitute a human rights violation or a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who had a drug addiction, was terminated from his employment with the corporate respondent for violating a Last Chance Agreement.

His union grieved the termination, but a labour arbitrator upheld the discharge and found no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination by both the employer and the union.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the union's alleged failure to properly represent the applicant was not linked to a Code ground.