Employment and Labour Law

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of union grievances.

The applicant wished to pursue the matter at the Tribunal and asked her union to withdraw the grievances, but refused to sign a release required by the union for the withdrawal.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the grievances were still scheduled for arbitration and the request was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to choose her forum, and since she clearly intended to abandon the grievance process, requiring formal withdrawal of the grievances would be an unnecessary technicality.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination based on disability against his employer and two individual supervisors regarding his return to work and accommodation.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondents and strike allegations from 2013 due to delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike the 2013 allegations, finding they could form part of the narrative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, as well as reprisal for a previous application.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, and alternatively, that the individual respondents be removed.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could point to evidence supporting his claims of discrimination and reprisal regarding his sick leave and rumours of an extra-marital affair.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the individual respondents at this stage, as their conduct was central to the reprisal allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the temporary discontinuance of his extended disability benefits and the deduction of CPP disability benefits from his extended disability benefits.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the temporary discontinuance of benefits, finding it was a challenge to the correctness of the administrator's decision, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the deduction of CPP disability benefits to proceed to a full hearing against the employer, Ford Canada, as it raised a novel issue of whether the deduction adversely impacts employees with more severe and prolonged disabilities.

The application was dismissed in its entirety against the plan administrator, Great West Life, as it was merely applying the terms of the self-funded plan.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing that the applicant had signed a termination letter releasing the corporate respondent from further obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the language in the termination letter drafted by the respondent was ambiguous and did not explicitly release claims under the Human Rights Code.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance appeared to address the same incidents.

Neither party provided submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding unequal pay, discovered after she was terminated.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for severance.

The Tribunal found that the release was unambiguous, the applicant had independent legal advice, and the broad language of the release covered all claims, known or unknown, arising from her employment.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's union had filed two grievances that substantially overlapped with the facts and human rights issues in the application, including allegations of harassment, discrimination, and termination.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings where a grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The application was deferred pending a union grievance, which was subsequently settled.

The applicant sought to reactivate the application.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and the applicant was bound by its resolution.

The applicant, a former business agent and secretary/treasurer of the respondent union local, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

He claimed that after disclosing his depression and anxiety, the respondent failed to accommodate him and subjected him to harassing communications and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, his communications did not amount to a request for accommodation that triggered the respondent's duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's communications were not harassing or reprisal, but rather standard oversight and requests to perform essential duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a food service supervisor at a retirement residence, failed to attend work and provided doctor's notes indicating she needed a medical leave due to acute anxiety and depression.

The respondent employer, facing a critical staffing shortage, did not investigate her medical condition or seek further information, but instead deemed her to have resigned.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability and that the respondent breached both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her under section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,760.38 for lost wages and $25,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application following the completion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application was untimely, dealt with by the OLRB, and barred by a signed release.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application but directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the grounds raised by the respondent.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's airline tickets and travel documents.

The applicant had been suspended for refusing to provide these documents to his employer to support his claim that he changed his flight due to illness.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the respondents' defence regarding the reasonableness of the suspension.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within 7 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated for cause.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement package.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and was not under duress when he signed it.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming that the individual respondents engaged in inappropriate sexualized behaviour, including making references to genitalia, exposing genitalia, and making suggestive jokes.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and corroborated by an independent witness.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' conduct sexualized the workplace and created a poisoned work environment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a school bus driver employed by the respondent First Nation, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination.

The respondent requested deferral pending related federal proceedings, and the Tribunal raised the issue of whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the federal proceedings were on hold or conditional.

Applying the functional test, the Tribunal found that the respondent's provision of school bus services to provincial high schools was a provincial undertaking, not integral to any federal undertaking, and therefore fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his claim of discrimination on the basis of disability for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the respondent's illegal termination caused him to develop panic attacks and chronic anxiety.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue a position already considered, and reiterated that post-employment disability cannot form the basis of a discrimination claim regarding the termination itself.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged he was terminated from his employment at a furniture store because of a back injury, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to performance issues, including poor sales and leaving the store unattended.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and preferred the respondent's evidence that the termination was based solely on performance issues.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his alleged disability was a factor in his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through the union's grievance procedure.

The applicant's union had previously advised him that it would not pursue his grievances to arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a union's internal grievance procedure does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1, as it does not involve a neutral third party applying an objective legal standard.