Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant consented and the respondent took no position.

Applying the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status be deferred pending the resolution of a parallel civil court action.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the remedies sought in the two proceedings were different.

The Tribunal found that although the legal issues and remedies differed, the underlying facts were the same, creating a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil court action.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add two individuals as personal respondents, to compel production of addresses and business structure documents, and to amend her Application to add a claim of reprisal and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The Tribunal granted the request to add one individual as a personal respondent, finding there were allegations that could support a Code violation and uncertainty regarding the corporate respondent's liability.

The request to add the second individual was denied as he had not been served.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of addresses and documents, and permitted the applicant to amend her Application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated for sustaining a work-related injury and filing a WSIB claim.

The WSIB had previously found the employer breached its re-employment obligations by terminating the applicant because of his injury.

The Tribunal declined to apply issue estoppel to the WSIB's finding due to fairness considerations, noting the employer had no incentive to appeal the WSIB decision after it offered to re-employ the applicant to avoid a penalty.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the employer terminated the applicant based on a sincere, non-discriminatory belief that the applicant had submitted a fraudulent, backdated doctor's note.

The Tribunal also found no failure to accommodate prior to termination, as the employer had no suitable modified work available.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding initiated by the applicant's fiancé.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB proceeding did not address the applicant's substantive allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add her former employer, Eco-Guard Pest Control Inc., as a corporate respondent on consent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, race, and colour, claiming she and a colleague were subjected to adverse treatment and termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code infringement.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was allowed to proceed to the next stage.

The applicant, a former teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the school board and her union.

The allegations against the school board related to events between 2009 and 2012, but the application was not filed until July 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the school board for delay, finding the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for missing the one-year limitation period.

The allegations against the union for failing to represent her on harassment claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence the union's decision was based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement by counting disability-related absences as personal emergency leave days.

On the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal issued a consent order allowing the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice to her right to bring a future section 34 application regarding the legal question of whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days.

The Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant argued that the prior grievance arbitration did not address the pattern of discrimination preceding his termination and that the union and employer had agreed not to raise human rights issues at arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the application did not allege incidents of discrimination preceding the termination, that applicants cannot split their case by restricting Code arguments at arbitration, and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The application was previously deferred due to a CCAA stay.

The respondent requested reactivation with the consent of the Monitor, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal also directed a preliminary/summary hearing to address whether the allegations are untimely, whether they have no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the applicant's request to add individual respondents should be granted.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination and received a settlement payment.

The Tribunal found that the release was clear and unambiguous, and that the applicant's mistaken belief that the release was conditional on an internal investigation did not invalidate it.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a teacher, filed two human rights applications against her school board employer and her union, alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the older allegations against the school board did not form a series of incidents with the timely ones and were dismissed for delay, as the applicant lacked a good faith explanation.

The timely allegations against both the school board and the union were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination or establishing reprisal.

Both applications were dismissed in their entirety.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on family status (eldercare) after the respondent proposed a schedule change to accommodate her physical restrictions.

The applicant claimed the new schedule interfered with her ability to care for her elderly mother but refused to provide sufficient medical or factual information to the employer to substantiate her eldercare needs.

The Tribunal clarified the test for family status discrimination, rejecting the requirement to prove legal responsibility or self-accommodation as part of the prima facie case.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish discrimination because she only informed the employer she prepared evening meals, which the new schedule did not prevent.

The application was dismissed, and the termination for job abandonment was upheld.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment because her daughter filed an application with the Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application pending an Employment Standards Act claim due to lack of information.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedies sought, noting the early stage of proceedings and lack of prejudice.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the individual respondent as a party, finding that the corporate respondent was the appropriate party for the termination allegation and the individual's conduct was not central to the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employer changed her shift upon her return from maternity leave, which interfered with her childcare arrangements.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement withdrawing a grievance on the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and settlement covered the same human rights allegations and that the applicant was not under duress when she signed the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following his termination.

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement, with union advice, that included a full and final release of all claims in exchange for a $15,000 lump sum.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under economic and psychological duress and without reading it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had the capacity to understand the clear terms of the release, received sufficient consideration, and failed to establish that he was subjected to illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion of his will.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex regarding the calculation of her seniority hours, including during a pregnancy-related absence.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance proceeding was dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, and deferred the application to avoid conflicting findings of fact and duplication of proceedings.

The applicant, a union steward, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability after a manager referred to his 'mental imbalance' in an email.

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

The Tribunal found that the single comment did not amount to discrimination under the Code and that the applicant could not link other alleged adverse treatment to the ground of disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in his dismissal from the respondent law firm.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had an ongoing civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts and seeking Code remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action had not been discontinued and sought remedies for Code infringement arising from the same facts.

Accordingly, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the City of Toronto for records relating to job descriptions for Council staff members.

The City denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusions in sections 52(3)2 and 3.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the records did not relate to negotiations or anticipated negotiations, nor did the City have a sufficient legal interest in the employment-related matters to trigger the exclusions.

The City was ordered to issue an access decision in accordance with the Act.