Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the applicant to undergo a physiotherapist assessment to determine if she could perform the essential duties of her position, and if not, she would resign in exchange for general damages.

The physiotherapist concluded she could not perform the duties, but the applicant refused to resign, claiming the assessment was inaccurate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had not breached the settlement and that the applicant was simply dissatisfied with the outcome of the agreed-upon assessment process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The union respondents requested summary dismissal on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing a prior grievance settlement dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents, finding no facts were alleged linking their representation to a Code ground.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, as the grievance settlement only covered a portion of the time period during which the applicant alleged discrimination.

The applicant, a 57-year-old custodian with the respondent school board, alleged age discrimination after being denied promotions to two foreperson positions and refused interviews for three supervisor positions.

The successful candidates for the foreperson positions were 45 and 43 years old.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decisions, namely that the successful candidates had superior work performance and supervisory experience.

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation of reprisal, finding no evidence that the respondent's actions regarding summer work assignments were intended to retaliate against the applicant for claiming rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and failure to advance in her career.

Prior to filing the application, she filed a union grievance raising the same allegations.

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

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application alleging creed discrimination, which had been deferred pending a union grievance.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was untimely and barred by a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding it was filed within the 60-day time limit under the Rules of Procedure.

However, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal after returning to work from a leave related to asthma triggered by photocopier emissions.

The Tribunal had previously deferred her first application pending a WSIAT appeal regarding the cause of her asthma.

The Tribunal declined to defer the second application, finding that the issues of accommodation and reprisal upon her return to work extended beyond the scope of the WSIAT appeal, minimizing the risk of inconsistent results.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

Although the OLRB dismissed her Employment Standards Act complaint, a hearing for her Occupational Health and Safety Act complaint remained pending.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of inconsistent findings remained due to overlapping facts and issues, and ordered the application to remain deferred until the OLRB determines the OHSA complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex, as well as workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration proceeding that raised the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral and filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing concerns that a potential witness was moving abroad.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request to avoid inconsistent decisions and denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's failure to file required declarations and finding that the witness's relocation did not justify an expedited hearing.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent reminder.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's prior Ministry of Labour complaint regarding termination pay appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined the applicant's entitlement to termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and did not address the Code-related claims of discrimination based on disability and age.

The respondents requested a deferral of the applicant's human rights application, which alleged sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, pending the outcome of their appeal of an Employment Standards Act (ESA) decision regarding the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal risk of inconsistent results because the human rights application did not involve the termination of employment and there was a lack of significant overlap between the issues in the two proceedings.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated due to age discrimination.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence—that he was the youngest employee in his division and was once called a 'young punk' by a supervisor—was insufficient to establish a link between his termination and his age, especially given his acknowledged performance and reliability issues.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of gender expression and reprisal after the respondent strictly enforced a 'clean shaven policy' requiring employees to be clean shaven to ensure the proper fit of respirator masks.

The applicant had grown a goatee to support the Movember movement.

The Tribunal held that the wearing of a beard by a cisgendered man is a matter of style or grooming and is not protected under the ground of gender expression or sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, finding that the threat of discipline was for failing to comply with the policy, not for claiming Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of her union grievances regarding failure to accommodate and termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

The applicant and his union submitted that deferral was not appropriate because the grievance was in abeyance due to the applicant being out of the workplace with no known return date.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer the application since the grievance was not proceeding, and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The respondent employer requested an order requiring the applicant to consent to the release of her occupational health file held by a third-party provider.

The applicant had alleged failure to accommodate her disability but refused to release the records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent needed the records to meaningfully respond to the application and ordered the applicant to sign a consent form waiving confidentiality.

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

Prior to filing, the applicant had settled a grievance concerning his termination, signing a Memorandum of Agreement and a Final Release discharging the employer from all claims, including those under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process.

The applicant claimed he signed the release under duress from his union.

The Tribunal found no evidence of illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion and held that the release was binding.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay occurred because he initially filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in error.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as the applicant failed to make timely inquiries about the correct forum before the limitation period expired.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the application remained dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a seasonal retail position.

The applicant claimed she was treated coldly during a group interview compared to non-white candidates.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support an inference of discrimination, noting the applicant's own admission that her cellphone rang and she answered it during the interview, which the respondent cited as the non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her.

The application was dismissed.