Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim before the Ontario Labour Relations Board raising similar facts and seeking similar remedies.

Finding considerable overlap and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceedings.

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

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously executed a full and final release settling a wrongful dismissal claim that included similar allegations.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under duress due to the mediator's behaviour and without knowing her expenses should have been covered.

The Tribunal found no duress, noting the applicant was represented by counsel and supported by her husband during mediation.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, and sex, culminating in her termination.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's termination under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a prior grievance arbitration had already appropriately dealt with the substance of those claims by determining she was terminated for just cause (dishonesty) rather than disability discrimination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegations, finding them to be either untimely, not part of a continuous series of incidents, or lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a hairstylist of aboriginal status, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, colour, and place of origin.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the Tribunal could not conclude that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to proceed to the next stage in the hearing process.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging sex discrimination be deferred pending the outcome of union grievances related to unjust discipline and tuition reimbursement.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievances, particularly regarding allegations of harassment.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination due to the respondent's mandatory retirement policy.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, arguing the one-year time limit began when the applicant signed the partnership agreement containing the policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the triggering incident was the actual application of the policy (the forced retirement), making the application timely.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), which raised issues of reprisals under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the proceedings and concluded that concurrent proceedings could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The request was granted and the application was deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondent advised that the grievance proceeding had already concluded in a settlement and requested the application be dismissed as duplicative.

The Tribunal found deferral inappropriate since the grievance had concluded, and directed the respondent to file a full Response where it could make its request to dismiss.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his employer and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union failed to act on his complaints regarding the employer's failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's inaction to his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions, and directed the parties to the Rules of Procedure for bringing the application back on after the grievance concludes.

The applicant, a childcare worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer significantly reduced her hours and effectively terminated her employment following pregnancy-related absences.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's uncontradicted evidence, finding that the reduction in hours was directly linked to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal awarded $8,671 in lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being terminated on his first day of work.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to call in to the hearing and had not communicated with the Tribunal for several months.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a previously filed complaint with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application until the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination by her employer regarding her alcohol addiction.

The respondent employer requested that the applicant's union, the Durham Regional Police Association, be added as a respondent.

The applicant and the union opposed this request.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against the union and noting the applicant's opposition.

However, the Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, recognizing its interest in the accommodation issues raised.

The applicant, a Black male casual Educational Assistant, was terminated after surreptitiously obtaining a 16-year-old female student's phone number and sending her numerous text messages late at night.

He filed a human rights application alleging his termination was based on his race and sex, and was a reprisal for previous accommodation requests.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities, as his claims relied on bald assertions and speculation rather than probative evidence.

The applicant, a security supervisor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against his former employer, TSM, and the successor contractor, Securitas.

He claimed TSM harassed him regarding absences for pneumonia and gave him an unfair suspension and bonus.

He further alleged Securitas refused to hire him due to his need for day shifts to accommodate childcare and his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence connecting TSM's actions to a protected ground and noting that a transitory bout of pneumonia is not a disability under the Code.

The Tribunal also found that Securitas was unaware of the applicant's disability and that his family status was not a factor in its decision not to offer him work, which was instead based on the unavailability of positions at his high wage rate.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after his employer failed to pay his wages and subjected him to racist insults, including calling him a 'Muslim terrorist'.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that while the reprisal claim failed, the respondent's egregious comments constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $960.52 for lost earnings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after his employment was terminated for allegedly abandoning his job following a leave of absence.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Officer decision awarding the applicant termination pay had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA decision addressed whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct, but did not address whether the termination failed to accommodate his Code-related needs.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to file an amended Reply.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer her human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding initiated by her union.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the reprisal allegations remaining in the application were distinct from the systemic discrimination issues raised in the grievance.

As there was no overlap in the issues in dispute, deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant, a construction worker, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following a work-related knee injury.

The Tribunal found that the respondent subjected the applicant to unwelcome comments about his disability, failed to address a physical assault by a co-worker related to his disability, and assigned him tasks outside his physical restrictions, constituting discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed allegations that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant during later return-to-work meetings, as the medical evidence provided at the time indicated he was totally disabled.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.