Employment and Labour Law

The applicant alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code following the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance filed on her behalf.

Finding that the issues in the application and the grievance overlapped significantly, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the same facts and human rights issues were the subject of ongoing union grievances.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the union owned the grievances and might not proceed with them.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach is to defer when concurrent grievance proceedings are ongoing, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent school board did not hire her for a casual clerical position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish the first two elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, and that evidence regarding the ages of the successful candidates was within the respondent's control.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not clear the application had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate by the respondent employer.

The applicant had also filed several grievances raising substantially the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievances.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it but noted the grievances were being held in abeyance until the applicant was medically able to return to work.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that because the grievances were in abeyance with no indication of when they would proceed, there was no risk of concurrent proceedings or inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trade commission of Mexico.

The respondent asserted state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was part of the Mexican consular post and therefore a foreign state.

The Tribunal then considered whether the commercial activity exception applied to the applicant's employment contract.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's duties involved consular functions that were sovereign in nature, and that the proceedings would necessarily intrude on the sovereign interests of the respondent.

Consequently, the commercial activity exception did not apply, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate his back injury.

The respondent requested an order to defer the application pending a grievance, dismiss portions for delay, and authorize access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management (OHCM) file.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request as the grievance was inactive and limited in scope.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the OHCM file, finding the medical records arguably relevant to defending the accommodation allegations, and extended the deadline for the respondent to file its Response.

The respondent in a human rights application requested early production of documents from the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department file, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances that would prevent the respondent from filing its Response without the documents, as the application primarily concerned managerial conduct rather than workplace accommodation.

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

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

The applicant also filed a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts and requested that the Tribunal defer the application until the grievance process was completed.

The respondents agreed that deferral was appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that deferral avoids simultaneous proceedings and conflicting determinations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin following his termination for eating unauthorized food during his shift.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through the grievance process, which ended when the union decided not to proceed to arbitration after Step 2.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a grievance process prior to arbitration before a neutral third party does not constitute a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application to clarify his allegations and seek monetary compensation, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

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

The respondents requested a summary hearing.

The applicant sought an interim order for early production of his employment file to clarify his employment status before filing a Reply and Response to the summary hearing request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that early production was not necessary because the respondents had already disclosed the applicant's consulting contract and invoices, which provided the information sought.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after requesting child care accommodation.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance had been filed and deemed settled under the collective agreement when it was not pursued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the grievance was not pursued, no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent must file a formal request if it wishes to add the union as a respondent.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal that post-dated the original filing.

The respondent hotel objected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, finding that the new allegations were distinct from the original ones, would unduly delay the scheduled hearing, and did not involve the individual respondent.

The Tribunal concluded it would not be fair, just, and expeditious to allow the amendment.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the termination of his employment.

He argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing a union grievance, which was ultimately dismissed at arbitration for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies does not normally constitute a good faith explanation for delay, and the applicant failed to explain a further three-month delay after the arbitration decision.

The application was dismissed as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from December 2012 to February 2013 due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the May 2014 allegation, finding a sufficient nexus between the alleged workplace harassment and the applicant's disability to warrant a full hearing.

The applicant, a part-time cashier, was terminated at the end of her first shift back to work after a two-day absence due to hospitalization for heart tests.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for disrespectful behaviour during a discussion about a broken chair.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and concluded that the respondent perceived the applicant to have a disability that would negatively impact her attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was terminated because of this perceived disability, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, $11,433.50 for lost wages, and the respondent was ordered to undergo human rights training.

The respondent requested that the human rights Application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior decision by an Employment Standards Officer appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

The Tribunal found that the ESA complaint, which concerned hours of work and related reprisal, made no mention of the human rights allegations of discrimination based on disability, sex, and age.

The Tribunal concluded that the ESA decision did not deal with the substance of the Application and dismissed the respondent's request.

The applicant, who has a physical disability, was hired by the respondent through a wage-subsidy program to develop a website and social media plan.

After the subsidy period ended, the respondent did not continue the applicant's employment, citing poor work performance on his one written assignment.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided ample time for the applicant to complete the assignment and that the poor quality of the work was unrelated to his disability.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the termination and a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal for his membership on a union bargaining committee, but failed to identify any grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss seeking submissions on jurisdiction.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the respondent employer refused to allow him to return to work following a WSIB injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Re-Employment Case Manager had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding the respondent breached its re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that although there was factual overlap, it would be unfair to the applicant to deprive him of the broader remedial authority available under the Code, as the WSIB's remedies were limited to a maximum of one year of partial lost wages.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the issues before the WSIB (whether the applicant met criteria for compensable traumatic mental stress) did not sufficiently overlap with the human rights issues (whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs and subjected him to discriminatory comments).