Employment and Labour Law

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a work-related injury rather than performance issues.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) was dealing with the same substance.

The Tribunal found that the primary issue at the WSIB—whether the termination was related to the injury or performance—was the same as the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a final decision from the WSIB.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a term of their minutes of settlement by failing to provide a letter of reference, instead providing an employment verification letter that omitted agreed-upon language.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's unilateral alteration of the letter's title, language, and content constituted a fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a redrafted letter complying with the settlement terms and awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the resulting harm and frustration in her job search.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and place of origin after being denied a Chemical Engineer position.

The successful candidate for the position filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the Tribunal's decision could directly affect his employment status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to grant intervenor status given the potential effect of the proceeding on the incumbent employee.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple union grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievances.

To avoid duplication of proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by his former employer approximately four months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith as the applicant had been repeatedly advised by the Ministry of Labour well within the limitation period that discrimination claims must be filed with the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual solicitation or advances and sexual orientation.

The respondent requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Rule 19A.5 of its Rules of Procedure, reasons are not required when declining to hold a summary hearing.

The adjudicator noted that the hearing adjudicator retains discretion to reconsider whether a full hearing is necessary after hearing some or all of the applicant's evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss against Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Morneau Shepell Ltd., and a Notice of Intent to Defer against Morneau and Great West Life Assurance Company pending a grievance arbitration.

On consent, OPG was removed as a respondent.

The application was deferred without objection pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the applicant's age discrimination application for delay.

The application alleged four discriminatory incidents, including a 2008 demotion, denial of performance bonuses since 2008, denial of a cost of living increase in 2014, and reduction of job duties in 2014.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 incidents were timely.

The ongoing denial of performance bonuses was left for evidence at the hearing to determine if it constituted a series of incidents.

However, the 2008 demotion allegation was dismissed for delay, as it lacked a sufficient nexus to the timely allegations and the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability, claiming his manager gave him a negative performance appraisal in 2011 after he returned from medical leaves.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found the last alleged incident occurred in 2011, making the 2015 application well outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the delay was incurred in good faith due to internal complaints, health issues, lack of legal knowledge, or fear of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which alleged a failure to accommodate her religious need for prayer breaks, after it had been deferred pending the outcome of related grievances.

Following the arbitrator's dismissal of the grievances, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

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

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued he signed the release without reading it on the advice of a paralegal and attempted to rescind it the next day.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress, inadequate consideration, or lack of capacity.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed despite the executed release would amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to provide a positive letter of reference as required by the Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal found that the letter provided by the respondent was neutral rather than positive, and therefore breached the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a positive letter of reference and awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect resulting from the breach.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to anonymize the decision to preserve the confidentiality intended by the original settlement.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination based on race and other grounds by his employer, union, police, and various individuals, arising primarily from a 2013 workplace incident that led to criminal charges and a workplace violence investigation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations were untimely, dealt with in another proceeding, or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations were untimely as they occurred more than a year before the applications were filed, did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegations—a suspension without pay and the union's refusal to fund legal representation for a human rights complaint—were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided only speculation and no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a summary hearing and the removal of the individual respondent, the applicant's former supervisor.

The applicant alleged workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal also denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that his individual conduct was a central issue in the case and a remedy might be sought against him directly if the allegations were substantiated.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a summary hearing and the removal of the individual respondent.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in his termination and sexual harassment by the individual respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19.6A.

The Tribunal also denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that her alleged conduct was a central issue in the case and that she could be personally liable for remedies if the sexual harassment allegations were substantiated.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer reprised against her for filing two previous grievances alleging racial discrimination.

The alleged reprisal consisted of assigning her to a cramped, unready office with old furniture upon her relocation to a new detention centre.

Following the applicant's case, the respondent requested the application be dismissed under Rule 19A for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the applicant's working conditions to her previous grievances and dismissed the application.

The applicant employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it was not required to make the payments because it had not received government funding, and sought to raise new arguments regarding the validity of the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employer could not raise new issues that were not canvassed at Review Services.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that a lack of government funding is not a valid defense under the Pay Equity Act to an employer's obligation to pay annual adjustments.

The application was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's order declaring it a seeking employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant argued it was not a public sector agency because it provided health promotion and prevention programs, not direct treatment for addiction.

The Tribunal found that the phrase 'services related to addiction' in the Act's Appendix is broad enough to encompass programs aimed at preventing addiction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was confirmed as a seeking employer required to use the proxy method of evaluation.

The applicant, the sole incumbent of the 'Buyer' job class, sought reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision which found that the 'Buyer' was a male job class.

The applicant argued that her duties differed from previous buyers and included clerical functions, making it a female job class.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant relied on evidence and arguments that were available at the time of the original hearing and failed to demonstrate any new evidence, changed circumstances, or error of law that would justify interfering with the final decision.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to adjust the job rate of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) to equal that of Ambulance Attendants (AAs).

The wage gap emerged after pay equity was achieved, as a result of an interest arbitration award that gave AAs a larger increase to achieve parity with provincial counterparts.

The employer argued this was permitted under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act as a difference in 'bargaining strength'.

The Tribunal held that the s. 8(2) exception does not apply when the female and male job classes are in the same bargaining unit.

The Review Officer's order was upheld.