Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a request to add his employer, the organizational respondent, to the application.

As the applicant did not object, the Tribunal amended the application to add the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal deferred other preliminary requests, including removal of the personal respondent and dismissal for delay, pending a scheduled mediation session.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging reprisal in employment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA process was another proceeding, it did not address the human rights allegations regarding late paycheques and inappropriate comments.

Therefore, the request to dismiss under section 45.1 was denied.

However, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application has no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the alleged inappropriate behaviour is not a prohibited ground and the reprisal allegations may lack a connection to Code-protected rights.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination filed a request to remove four individual respondents as parties.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Persaud and Sigrist, noting that personal respondents should generally be removed where a corporate respondent is liable, unless the individual's conduct is a central issue.

The Tribunal retained one individual respondent who allegedly conducted the discriminatory interview and termination, but removed the other three individuals against whom no specific allegations were made.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment as a service coordinator because of her family status, specifically her responsibilities toward her special needs child.

The respondents maintained she was terminated during her probationary period for poor performance, including excessive socializing and leaving her post.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the evidence showed the decision-maker was unaware of her special needs child and the termination was based on performance issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed most of her allegations against the union respondents.

The Tribunal found no new facts or other factors under Rule 26.5 to warrant reconsideration and dismissed the request.

The Tribunal also provided clarification to the respondent Unifor, confirming that it only needs to respond to allegations relating to the termination of the applicant's employment and subsequent events.

The applicant union filed a human rights application alleging systemic sex discrimination against casual Customer Service Representatives, who are predominantly female, regarding their wages and terms of employment.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, seeking dismissal for lack of timeliness, no reasonable prospect of success, and arguing that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the compensation issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents, that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has concurrent and broader jurisdiction over sex-based discrimination in compensation than the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, and that the union was not in a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Toronto and CUPE Local 79.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to explain how her allegations against the union engaged the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted that the union provided inadequate representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not constitute discrimination under the Code, as a mere failure to act or provide adequate representation without a discriminatory basis does not violate the Code.

The applicant filed multiple Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to amend his human rights applications to include new allegations of reprisal and performance management issues, to be moved to a different work area, and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to gather evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments to the applications as the respondent did not object.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to be moved to a different work area, noting it was an interim remedy for an event not part of the applications.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code, finding that an inquiry should not substitute the usual document production process and that the requested scope went beyond the applications.

The applicant, a black teacher, alleged that workplace violence complaints filed against him by several co-workers were motivated by racial discrimination.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several individual respondents, finding no evidence linking their actions to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the school board and two individuals regarding the initial incident, as the applicant's allegations of disproportionate reaction could potentially support an inference of discrimination.

The applicant, a hair colourist, alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent salon maintained that the termination was due to inadequate job performance, lack of speed, and unprofessional interactions with clients and staff.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination shortly after the pregnancy announcement established a prima facie case, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation.

The evidence, including three disciplinary letters issued prior to the termination, demonstrated that the dismissal was based solely on performance issues and inappropriate conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the corporate respondent, an international moving services company.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company engaged in interprovincial and international transportation.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the corporate respondent's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, origin, and disability following the termination of his employment.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as untimely, as it was filed more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred on the date of termination, making the application approximately three weeks late.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the delay was incurred in good faith due to an acute stress disorder, union delays in processing his grievance, and his lawyer's delay in advising him of his rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and parental leave.

At the hearing, the respondents requested to defer the application because the corporate respondent had appealed an Employment Standards Act decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the same termination.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proceedings addressed the same issues and deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a long-serving employee with clinical depression, alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, record of offences, association, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding record of offences, association, and reprisal based on the applicant's acknowledgments.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination allegation to proceed, finding that the applicant's placement and progression in the attendance management program may have been influenced by disability-related absences, which required a full hearing to determine if the employer met its duty to accommodate.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance involving the same facts and legal issues was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap between the application and the grievance, creating a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceeded concurrently.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application which the respondents requested be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance proceeding based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about delay and whether her human rights issues would be addressed.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance proceeding and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

She also requested that the Tribunal application be consolidated with the ESA proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the application must remain deferred until the ESA proceeding concludes, and noting that the Tribunal has no authority to consolidate its proceedings with ESA proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a Minutes of Settlement regarding her workplace accommodation for scent sensitivity.

The settlement required the applicant to be assigned to a specific building during school hours, with any changes to be discussed by a committee.

The respondent unilaterally reassigned the applicant to a different unit after she briefly left her post, without engaging the committee or initiating formal discipline.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to follow the agreed-upon process for modifying the accommodation.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant filed a second request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance.

The applicant sought reactivation because the arbitration hearing dates were delayed.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the grievance was in abeyance pending settlement discussions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and legal issues raised in both proceedings.

The application remains deferred pending the conclusion of the arbitral process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability following his termination.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the disability claim, finding the respondent had no knowledge of the applicant's medical issues prior to termination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the race discrimination claim to proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant's allegations of racist statements by a store manager required an assessment of evidence and credibility.