7 total
Human rights application against union dismissed summarily for failing to link actions to prohibited grounds.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and sex against her union and its president.
She claimed that a secret ballot vote was discriminatorily ordered to determine whether her grievance regarding her termination would proceed to arbitration.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds, noting that the union's decision to hold a secret ballot was based on the sensitive nature of the allegations against her.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Summary hearing to dismiss human rights application denied; applicant's claims of disability discrimination by union proceed.
The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its executive members discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they withdrew from representing her in a harassment grievance.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, which included claims that union executives made derogatory remarks about her mental health, established a potential link between the disadvantageous treatment and her disability.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed it to continue in the process.
Police discipline conviction for corrupt practice set aside due to insufficient and unreliable evidence.
The appellant police officer appealed a finding of corrupt practice and a penalty of four days' lost pay.
The allegation was that while off-duty, he and another officer used a police badge to jump the line at a restaurant.
The Commission found that the sole witness against the appellant was unreliable, having been drinking and unable to clearly identify the officers or the badge.
Furthermore, the officers had VIP cards for the restaurant and knew the owners.
The Commission concluded there was no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant improperly used his position for private advantage.
The conviction was set aside.
Section 11 of the Charter does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings lacking penal consequences.
The appellant police officer was charged with major offences under the Code of Offences under the Police Act.
He objected that the presiding officer did not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal as required by section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Wigglesworth to hold that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings because they are neither criminal in nature nor involve true penal consequences.
Employee's decision to take a layoff rather than accept an unlawful demotion was reasonable mitigation.
Following a finding that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by unlawfully reassigning an employee to a lower-paying position, the parties disputed the quantum of compensation.
The employer argued the employee failed to mitigate his damages by electing to take a layoff rather than accepting the lower-paying reassignment.
The Board held that given the employer's pattern of unlawful discrimination and the employee's reasonable expectation of quickly finding alternate employment at full pay, his decision to take a layoff was a reasonable attempt to mitigate his losses.
The employee was awarded full compensation for the period of his unemployment.
Police officer's appeal of insubordination conviction for refusing to trim moustache dismissed by majority.
The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing to obey an order to trim his moustache to comply with personal appearance regulations.
The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.
The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.
The dissenting member would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment prior to formal conviction, thus constituting double jeopardy.
The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order to trim his moustache to comply with the force's personal appearance regulations.
In dissenting reasons, one member found that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment before formal conviction and would have allowed the appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.
