Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the employer accommodated individuals with WSIB claims ahead of those with non-work-related disabilities.

The union respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related policy grievance that was being advanced to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the policy grievance covered the same facts and human rights issues and its outcome could be determinative of the applicant's individual grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the policy grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised could only be resolved after hearing the respondent's evidence, and ordered the hearing to continue.

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

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

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he was induced to sign it by the respondent's fraudulent misrepresentation that his termination was due to restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the test for fraudulent misrepresentation, specifically the requirement to repudiate the agreement and return the settlement funds within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and related accommodation requests.

The respondent employer maintained that she was terminated for cause after an internal investigation concluded she had improperly obtained an employee discount for her husband's meal, which the employer viewed as theft.

The Tribunal found that while the employer's discount policy may have been unclear and inconsistently applied, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant's pregnancy or accommodation requests played any role in the decision to terminate her employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination and harassment against the union and employer respondents.

She argued the Tribunal erred in its application of the duty to investigate sexual harassment, the duty to enforce a smoking policy, and the union's duty to accommodate, and that it misapprehended evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no material factual errors, and that the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate her case.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act regarding a workplace injury sustained by the applicant.

The applicant confirmed that he had only filed Intent to Object forms to preserve timelines and had not initiated any appeals that would overlap with the issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that deferral was not appropriate because no overlapping WSIB proceeding had been initiated and denied the respondent's request.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being rejected for an acting Department Head position.

He sought to amend his application to include a subsequent rejection for the permanent position.

The respondent consented to the amendment on the condition that a duplicate application be withdrawn and the hearing adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association intervenor status to make arguments and cross-examine witnesses, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's request despite the applicant's opposition.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination, initially naming only the owner of the company.

After retaining counsel, the applicant requested to add the corporate employer as an organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth factors and granted the request, finding that the allegations fell within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code and that adding the respondent would not cause prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the application substantially overlapped with the issues before the arbitrator, who had the authority to address the human rights claims.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance procedure.

The applicant, a staffing coordinator, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the dismissal was due to poor performance, lack of urgency, and failure to fill client orders.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the termination to the applicant's pregnancy, noting that the employer had accommodated her medical appointments and planned for her maternity leave.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the applicant was dismissed for ongoing performance deficiencies, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former manager at a Country Style Donut franchise, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, family status, marital status, and disability.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was dismissed in substantial part because she required a temporary accommodation for a perceived disability (modified hours).

The Tribunal also found she experienced a poisoned work environment due to derogatory comments about her age, marital status, and family status, and faced reprisal for complaining.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $22,180 for lost income.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated because of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and association.

Prior to this application, the applicant filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim alleging reprisal, which was dismissed after an officer found the termination was due to legitimate business restructuring.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the ESA proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and precluded a finding of discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil suit regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal reviewed the Statement of Claim and found it alleged wrongful dismissal, bad faith, and racial discrimination based on the same facts as the application.

The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of section 34(11) were met, as a civil proceeding seeking damages for alleged Code violations had been commenced and not finally determined.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal against the respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's president repeatedly contacted her after she filed the application, causing her emotional stress.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the reprisal allegations regarding the respondent's communications, but excluded allegations regarding a co-worker's threats, as the co-worker was not a named respondent.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with in the grievance.

The Tribunal found the grievance proceeding had concluded and the request to reactivate was timely.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondent to file its Response, noting that any s. 45.1 dismissal request would require an oral hearing.

The applicant, Executive Director of the corporate respondent, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

She requested an interim remedy to prevent the Board of Directors from attending the workplace until the application is heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it has never ordered a Board of Directors to be barred from its premises, and expressing concerns about the merits and jurisdiction of the application.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions detailing the alleged Code infringements.

The respondent employer sought to dismiss the employee's human rights application as an abuse of process, arguing the employee had signed a termination agreement accepting a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the termination letter did not explicitly state the employee was releasing his right to pursue claims under the Human Rights Code, nor was this clearly explained to him.

Because the agreement was ambiguous regarding the release of statutory human rights claims, the Tribunal interpreted it against the employer who drafted it.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a grievance addressing the same incidents was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it, noting that the grievance arbitration was already underway.

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

The applicant, a part-time Registered Nurse, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed her shifts were cancelled for discriminatory reasons and that co-workers made derogatory racial and ethnic comments.

The Tribunal found that the shift cancellations were based on valid operational reasons, specifically low patient census and the applicant's low seniority.

Regarding the comments, the Tribunal concluded that even if they were made, they were single, discrete incidents that were not sufficiently egregious or virulent to constitute harassment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, employed as Clerk 2s in the Records Search Unit, filed an application alleging their job class was incorrectly valued compared to the Clerk 1 job class.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to plead material facts demonstrating that the employer and union acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes, noting that the Act does not require wage parity between different employers or identical valuation for positions with different duties.

The application was dismissed.