Employment and Labour Law

The applicant brought an application against the respondent under the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled all hearing dates.

The respondent requested an extension to the production deadline and an adjournment of the hearing date due to the resignation of its executive director.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the production deadline to March 7, 2022, and directing the parties to provide mutually available dates in April 2022 to reschedule the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

Prior to a scheduled summary hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The respondent requested that the withdrawal be granted only on a with prejudice basis, given the time and resources expended.

The applicant agreed to this condition but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw the application on a with prejudice basis, preventing the applicant from reviving the application or filing a new one regarding the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being fired for complaining about workplace mistreatment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not link the alleged mistreatment or termination to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, including failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The corporate respondent, Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to remove seven individual respondents as parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment and implementing corporate policy, and that the corporate respondent would be able to provide a remedy if a Code violation was found.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant cited concerns with the conduct of the arbitration and delays in scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the delay was not sufficiently egregious to justify concurrent proceedings and that the settlement discussions described by the applicant were typical for an arbitration.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $10,000 and fulfill other non-monetary obligations.

The central issue was whether the term 'the respondents' in the settlement agreement applied to all three named respondents, including a former manager who was no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found the term latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of the negotiating history.

The Tribunal concluded that the corporate respondent and its president were jointly and severally liable for the settlement obligations, but the former manager was not.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent and its president to pay the $10,000 with pre- and post-judgment interest, but declined to award additional compensation for the breach.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, race, and reprisal against the Police Services Board, the Police Association, and a third-party disability management provider.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests to amend his application, the respondents' requests to dismiss certain allegations for delay and as having been dealt with in a prior proceeding, and the third-party provider's request to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments but denied others due to delay, struck allegations previously dealt with by the OHRC, dismissed several historical allegations for delay as they did not form a series of incidents, and refused to remove the third-party provider as a respondent because its role in adjudicating sick leave and accommodation requests was inextricably linked to the applicant's employment.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove her union, CUPE Local 79, as a respondent.

The union consented.

The Tribunal also considered whether to defer the application pending a grievance process.

Since the applicant declined the union's assistance and no grievance was filed, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The union was removed as a respondent but remained an affected party.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination.

The applicant argued the release was void because the respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the final payment on time, and that he signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress amounting to coercion of will.

The Tribunal held that the failure to implement a term of the settlement does not permit a party to raise the underlying substantive issues at the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a 56-year-old female Vice-Principal, alleged that the respondent School Board discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex when she was unsuccessful in a job competition for a Principal position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations primarily pointed to perceived unfairness in the interview and scoring process rather than evidence of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not establish a link between the proposed evidence and the alleged prohibited grounds, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged that her employer discriminated against and harassed her based on disability, and terminated her employment after she took a medical leave for a seizure.

The Tribunal found that the alleged harassment regarding seating, office transfers, and performance management had no connection to any disability.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted documentary evidence showing the employer had decided to terminate the applicant for performance reasons five days before she experienced her seizure and required medical leave.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, age, and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent disciplined her and issued a letter of expectation regarding a workplace incident involving a misplaced cell phone, and that this was motivated by her race, age, and prior human rights and WSIB claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination, alongside a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the ESA claim's resolution.

The applicant opposed the deferral and provided the Tribunal with the recently released ESA decision.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that because the ESA proceeding was no longer active, there was no risk of concurrent proceedings or inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the age discrimination claim.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the ethnic origin claim, finding that the applicant's allegations of differential treatment compared to francophone drivers provided a reasonable prospect of success.

The matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing on the merits.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the resolution of two grievances filed on her behalf regarding denied vacation and unjust discipline.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding no indication that the grievances were active, ongoing, or proceeding to arbitration, and therefore no risk of concurrent proceedings or inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a cook, alleged discrimination on the basis of pregnancy after her hours were reduced and she was terminated shortly after disclosing her pregnancy.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in her termination, noting the timing of the reduction in hours and the lack of evidence from the respondent to explain the termination.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $5,880 for lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and sought to add her union as a respondent.

The application was filed nearly four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The applicant argued her delay was due to her disability and the effects of medication.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that she was practically prevented from filing in a timely way, noting her active participation in a grievance arbitration during the same period.

The Tribunal also declined to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual basis to infer discrimination in its representation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts because of sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration raising identical issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing a Tribunal decision would have broader application.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.