Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a required notice of decision or order from a review officer.

The applicant failed to provide the document.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it also failed to raise an issue under the Act.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file its response to an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent sought an extension to March 22, 2024.

The Tribunal granted a partial extension, ordering the response to be filed no later than March 12, 2024.

The applicant union brought an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondent hospital improperly created new job classes for Registered Practical Nurses under the guise of a maintenance exercise.

The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to a procedural schedule for documentary disclosure, agreed statements of fact, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Tribunal issued an order reflecting the agreed schedule and set dates for a further pre-hearing conference and the hearing on the merits.

The complainant, a long-service employee, filed a complaint alleging he was improperly reassigned from his position as Staff Inspector to Deputy Superintendent, which he argued constituted constructive dismissal, discipline, and was done arbitrarily and in bad faith.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07 to review assignments or performance evaluations, and sought to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary objections, finding that the complainant's allegations of arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith conduct, as well as constructive dismissal and improper discipline, raised issues within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board directed the matter to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance-arbitration proceeding.

The applicant provided no information indicating that the labour arbitration had concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that continued deferral remained appropriate.

The Tribunal also declined to provide guidance on various other employment issues raised by the applicant, noting they were outside its jurisdiction.

The respondent employer filed a request to dismiss the human rights application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the applicant's last day of work.

The applicant contended that his employment was terminated during a telephone call three days later, which fell within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the application was timely because the applicant alleged a discriminatory incident occurred within the one-year period preceding the filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, and subsequently requested an interim remedy for financial assistance and relief from a pension election due to financial hardship following her dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that financial hardship alone does not meet the significant onus required to show that an interim order is necessary to ensure an effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also deferred the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration related to the applicant's dismissal.

The applicant, a Transit Operator, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his short-term disability benefits and return to work plan.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the insurer, Manulife, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting its claims management to the applicant's disability, and the employer bears the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also dismissed several allegations against the employer for delay, finding they did not form a series of incidents with timely allegations and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the delay.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application in part and resolved outstanding document production requests.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being screened out of two job competitions at the City of Toronto.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal removed two individual respondents as parties, finding their presence unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The respondents' request for a summary hearing was refused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the redacted applications and CVs of candidates who were screened into the competitions, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that he was equally or better qualified.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include remedies for maintaining seniority and compensation for wage loss.

The respondent opposed the amendment on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the respondent's request for medical records and the intervenor's request to exclude certain recordings from evidence.

The applicant, a former house cleaner, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, family status, and association, as well as reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to reprisal and family status, finding no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was denied a promotion to captain status because of her age to proceed to a full hearing, as she could potentially establish a prima facie case.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a union grievance process that was ultimately withdrawn.

The respondents opposed the re-activation due to the passage of time and requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding no authority to deny it despite concerns about the ten-year delay.

The Tribunal also denied the request to dismiss the application as untimely, noting that the one-year filing deadline fell on a Saturday, and the application was properly filed on the following Monday.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and creed regarding his termination and pension plan provisions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the release, had legal advice, and was not under duress or subject to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he lacked the cognitive capacity to understand the release when he signed it.

The Tribunal found no medical or other evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity, noting he understood he had to sign to receive severance.

The Tribunal held the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a sales representative, alleged discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, claiming a senior representative referred to her as 'that Chinese girl' and that she received inadequate supplies and support.

Following the applicant's evidence at a summary hearing, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the only evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to the applicant's ethnic origin was hearsay, to which it attached no weight.

Concluding the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement in a Small Claims Court action regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had explicitly raised human rights issues in the civil action and that the settlement released the respondent from all claims related to the facts and issues raised in that action.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in employment requested the production of various documents from the personal and corporate respondents prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the production of Records of Employment, text messages, photographs, and an investigation report, with the identifying information of a third-party complainant redacted to balance probative value and prejudicial effect.

Requests for broad internal correspondence, settlement agreements, and certain corporate policies were denied for failing to establish arguable relevance.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment by the personal respondent, the President and CEO of her former employer.

The respondents failed to participate in the Tribunal's process and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including unwelcome physical touching and inappropriate comments, which constituted sexual harassment.

The organizational respondent was held jointly and severally liable as the personal respondent was its directing mind.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the organizational respondent to provide human rights training and post Code cards.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding a job transfer and the denial of a mentorship opportunity.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already decided by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found the GSB had appropriately dealt with the transfer allegation and dismissed that part of the application.

The Tribunal also dismissed the mentorship allegation, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's age.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former student.

The member engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with the student and met with her outside of school on several occasions, during which physical contact occurred.

The member had previously been reprimanded by his school board for similar conduct but continued the relationship.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse, rejecting his claim that he was merely trying to end the relationship.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.