Employment and Labour Law

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The respondents opposed the re-activation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) was not expected to be heard until at least June 2017, resulting in excessive delay.

Given the passage of time since the 2011 events and the uncertainty that the WSIAT would address the substance of the human rights allegations, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application re-activated.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release after his employment was terminated.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress due to financial and personal pressures.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's financial circumstances did not amount to coercion of the will, especially since he had negotiated an improved severance package before signing.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

The respondents requested to remove the individual respondent as a party to an application alleging harassment and discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to keep the individual respondent.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy against a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as a party, arguing he only dealt with the applicant as an officer of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature because the corporate respondent had not accepted deemed or vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct.

The Tribunal added the corporate respondent as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status regarding her termination.

The applicant's union concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

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

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial factual overlap and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings continued concurrently.

The applicant, a real estate sales agent, alleged that the personal respondent, the broker of record, subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious comments about the applicant's appearance and subjected her to unwanted physical contact, including hugging and touching her shoulder.

The Tribunal concluded that this conduct amounted to sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a workplace sexual harassment policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

Both the applicant and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the grievances involved the same facts and human rights issues, including allegations of workplace violence.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, gender identity, record of offences, and association, as well as reprisal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2013 allegations had been resolved by a prior grievance settlement, and the remaining allegations regarding the applicant's termination for unsupported bereavement leaves had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground or reprisal.

The applicant, a mobile security guard, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability, specifically his need for time off for surgery.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to restructuring and performance issues, and denied knowledge of the surgery request.

The Tribunal found that the Division Manager was likely aware of the surgery request prior to the termination and that it was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was tainted by discrimination and awarded the applicant $7,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged that she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and mistreated by another co-worker, leading to her resignation.

At the hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the employer was not vicariously liable for the co-worker's alleged sexual harassment under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, because the applicant never reported the harassment to the employer, the employer's duty to investigate and address the behavior was never triggered.

The Tribunal also found no evidence connecting the other co-worker's mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with similar allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application after it was deferred pending the outcome of union grievances.

The respondents opposed reactivation on the basis of delay and sought dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled by a Memorandum of Settlement between the university and the union.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding the delay was minor and the applicant substantially complied with the rules.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, holding that the applicant was not a party to the settlement, did not voluntarily agree to its terms, and could not be bound by it simply because a payment was deposited into his bank account.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination after her union had already filed grievances on her behalf regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievances were filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and were referred to arbitration where the arbitrator had authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from an application alleging employment discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship.

The respondents argued the personal respondent was acting in the course of his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the Sigrist and Carson factors.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent's alleged individual conduct was at the core of the application and could result in personal remedies, making his removal unfair at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent and intervenor union sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved by Minutes of Settlement reached at arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application because the applicant had not signed the settlement and did not implicitly accept its terms.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include her subsequent termination, and deferred the entire application pending the outcome of an expedited arbitration regarding the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application on its own initiative, pending the resolution of the applicant's claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the cases were unrelated.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding and the human rights application both related primarily to the applicant's dismissal and involved overlapping facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitrations and an Ontario Labour Relations Board application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid different conclusions about the facts in concurrent proceedings, and deferred the application pending the completion of the other proceedings.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's allegations of age discrimination in employment.

The applicant requested to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request, finding that the issues required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the individual had not been served with the request and it would be unfair to add him at this late stage.

The applicant employer sought to set aside a Review Officer's orders requiring it to make pay equity adjustments and post pay equity plans, based on a finding that it was a successor employer.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the outcome of the application could affect past and present employees.

Pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected employees to provide them an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.