Employment and Labour Law

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA claim for termination and severance pay did not address the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a wage disparity allegation, but denied his premature request for early production of payroll documents.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove personal respondents, compel disclosure, defer the application due to outstanding grievances, and strike certain paragraphs.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents because the corporate respondent assumed liability for their conduct and no prejudice would result.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide disclosure by fax and to submit further documentation confirming the withdrawal of his outstanding grievances before deciding on the deferral request.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability be deferred pending the conclusion of her related claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that there was a potential for significant delay in the WSIB proceedings and it was unclear whether those proceedings would address the substance of the human rights allegations, including the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's bank statements, income tax records, and documents related to an alleged manicure business.

The respondent argued the applicant was moonlighting while claiming to be off work sick.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her banking statements for 2014 and 2015, finding them arguably relevant to post-termination income and the respondent's defence.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to produce pre-termination documents related to the manicure business or provide further submissions within 7 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal by her former employer.

She claimed her line manager harassed her after hiring a relative or friend of the same race, and that she was terminated after complaining to the franchise owner.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence linking the alleged harassment to the applicant's race, and the reprisal claim failed because the applicant had not claimed or enforced her rights under the Code prior to her termination.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions and refused to allow him to return to work.

The respondents sought to defer the applications pending a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to their similar facts and issues, and deferred them pending the resolution of the grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the claims had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the reprisal claim was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the creed-based discrimination and reprisal claims to proceed, finding they required an evidentiary record and that the ESA proceeding did not address the substance of the Code reprisal claim.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the completion of a related labour arbitration.

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal found the arbitration was concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondents to file their responses and any reply regarding the dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by an employment standards officer who dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had sought a review of the employment standards officer's decision at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal held it was premature to consider dismissing the application under s. 45.1 while the other proceeding was still ongoing, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The corporate respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the resolution of a union grievance filed by the applicant's association.

The applicant consented to the deferral, but the personal respondent objected, arguing he was not a party to the grievance.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding an almost complete overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, and concluding that concurrent proceedings would create a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the allegations regarding hiring practices were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the application included broader allegations of harassment and a poisoned work environment not covered by the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process could also review those broader issues and that proceeding concurrently posed a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

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

She also commenced a civil claim against the respondent for wrongful or constructive dismissal based on the same allegations of harassment, differential treatment, racism, and sexism.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, finding that the civil claim raised the same facts and issues, and that allowing the application to proceed would risk inconsistent findings and waste resources through duplicative litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a failure to accommodate and resulting loss of earnings.

The parties consented to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding dealing with the same loss of earnings issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting the applicant could request reactivation within 60 days of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on association with a transgender co-worker, following the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate because it was filed past the 60-day deadline.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if reactivated, the application would be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the grievance arbitration had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations by finding no prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent requested early dismissal of an age discrimination application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved in a group grievance settlement between the respondent and the affected party union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant received no benefit from the settlement and did not expressly adopt it.

The respondent was directed to file its response.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated in a discriminatory manner based on her family and marital status, following an investigation into a scheme to defraud the respondent through its damaged goods sales program.

The respondent terminated the applicant and several of her family members, concluding they had participated in the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's relationship with her father-in-law and brothers-in-law did not fall within the Code's definition of family status.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the applicant was terminated because it reasonably believed she had knowingly benefited from stolen merchandise and had been untruthful during the investigation, rather than because of her marital relationship with her husband.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury, culminating in the termination of his employment.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the WSIB decisions provided by the parties addressed issues such as suitable work, physiotherapy entitlement, and claim referral, but did not deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The applicant, a Recruitment Specialist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal, after she was denied a significant salary increase and her employment was terminated shortly after she requested maternity leave.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a global budget reduction and restructuring, and that the applicant was selected for position elimination due to a decreased need for recruiters in her specific area and negative client feedback.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination raised an inference of discrimination, the respondents successfully established a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for both the termination and the denial of the salary increase.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding her recent termination from employment.

The Tribunal found that although the application did not directly address the termination, there was sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance, particularly regarding issues related to the applicant's disability and potential remedial issues.

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

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was premature as the parties were still resolving outstanding damages.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration proceeding had concluded, as the arbitrator's decision explicitly terminated the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application reactivated.