Employment and Labour Law

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging age discrimination be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that grievance proceedings and an internal investigation had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration awards did not address the harassment allegations and that an internal investigation is generally not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1.

The request to dismiss was denied and the matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and age after being fired from a business owned by his wife's uncle.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the owner did not fall within the Code's definition of family status, which is limited to parent and child relationships.

Furthermore, the applicant could not provide any evidence linking his termination to his age.

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

The applicant, a unionized employee with psoriatic arthritis and a workplace foot injury, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

She claimed the employer failed to properly accommodate her when it assigned her to modified work inspecting parts in an office area, citing issues with her workspace, work supply, and communication.

She also alleged that a non-disciplinary warning letter regarding her absenteeism was discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer had provided reasonable accommodation within her medical restrictions and that the attendance letter, which sought to address overall absenteeism while she was being accommodated, did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached several terms of their Minutes of Settlement.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to allege he lacked the capacity to sign the agreement.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it was out of time, would cause prejudice, and lacked evidentiary support.

The Tribunal then reviewed the alleged breaches, including claims regarding the removal of documents, tax rebate paperwork, job competition restrictions, and reference letters.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent breached any terms of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent hospital, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and reprisal.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a link between the adverse treatment she experienced—including exclusion by co-workers, discipline, and termination—and any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted issues with the applicant's credibility and perception of events, and found no evidence that the employer's actions were discriminatory or constituted reprisal for enforcing Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

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

She claimed that she was capable of performing her pre-injury duties as a Registered Practical Nurse but was denied the opportunity, and that she was mistakenly called in for shifts in 2014.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the underlying decision not to return the applicant to her pre-injury position was made in 2012 and was therefore out of time.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success regarding the 2014 scheduling errors, as there was no evidence linking the errors to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add six individuals as personal respondents to her human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found no compelling reason to add the individuals, as there were no allegations supporting personal liability or remedies against them outside their employment duties.

The request to add respondents was denied, and the Monitor for the corporate respondent was directed to provide an update on a court-ordered stay of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after not being interviewed for two positions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement containing a full and final release regarding the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found that the release barred any claims related to the applicant's employment up to his resignation date, which included the job competitions in question.

The applicant failed to establish duress in signing the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his ancestry when he was disciplined and terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own belief to connect the disciplinary actions and termination to his ancestry.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination by her former employer regarding a negative reference given to a prospective employer, Dynacare.

The applicant requested an order compelling Dynacare to produce a statement and notes from the employee who conducted the reference check.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering Dynacare to provide the statement and documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his nephew, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a perceived learning disability and reprisal.

The claimant worked as a prep cook at the respondent's restaurant and alleged he was placed on salary to avoid paying overtime, subjected to name-calling, and constructively dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the claimant's hours increased and he was yelled at by a supervisor, there was insufficient evidence to establish he was perceived to have a learning disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the determination of his Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim for termination pay.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the ESA proceeding would only deal with termination pay.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding a lack of significant overlap between the issues raised in the human rights application and the ESA claim, and concluding that the risk of inconsistent results was minimal.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application after withdrawing his grievance.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

As the respondent and intervenor did not file a response to the request, the Tribunal was satisfied that the grievance proceeding had concluded and ordered the application to be reactivated, directing the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by a WSIB decision.

The applicant indicated he was appealing the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal, finding that the proceedings overlapped in factual background and subject matter.

The applicant, a former stock clerk at the respondent's grocery store, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, and age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations without any evidence linking his workplace treatment to the enumerated Code grounds.

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

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement by paying insufficient severance and failing to provide continuous health and dental benefits.

The Tribunal found the language of the Minutes was clear and unambiguous, and the respondent had complied with the agreed-upon terms regarding severance pay and the 18-month continuation of benefits.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the admissibility and relevance of evidence relating to disciplinary proceedings under the Police Services Act (PSA).

The applicant, a former police officer alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, objected to the respondent introducing evidence about his removal from the Emergency Response Unit and subsequent PSA and criminal charges.

The Tribunal found the evidence potentially relevant to the respondent's defence against allegations of a poisoned work environment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that HRTO hearings are not 'civil proceedings' within the meaning of subsections 83(7) and 83(8) of the PSA, meaning the statutory privilege and inadmissibility provisions do not apply.

The applicant was compelled to testify regarding the PSA proceedings, and related documents were deemed admissible.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and subsequently terminated his benefits and employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter by closing the applicant's file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB had not addressed the specific allegations of failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, race, and reprisal brought a Request for Order seeking further production of documents from the respondent employer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce redacted medical and accommodation records of a male comparator who was allegedly granted a work-from-home accommodation, as well as the results of a search for home-based accommodations and the applicant's performance reviews.

The Tribunal denied requests for broader statistical data and internal reports, finding them overly broad and of little probative value to the specific allegations.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.