Brent Foreman

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to the Application of Mr. Burmaster.

The applicant consented to the request, provided he could refer to the initial draft at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the applicants and noting that the hearing was still months away.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing due to the condominium corporation's failure to provide ramped access to her unit and flexibility in parking rules.

She requested an interim remedy to halt the pouring of concrete for walkways until an agreement on accessibility modifications was reached.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the planned concrete work would not prevent the future construction of ramps and that an interim remedy was not necessary to ensure an effective final remedy.

The respondent filed a request for an order directing the applicant to provide additional materials, including curriculum vitae for her treating physician and physiotherapist, and more detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's witness statements lacked sufficient detail and ordered her to provide amended statements with particulars of the alleged incidents and proposed accommodations.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of the requested curriculum vitae, as the applicant did not oppose the request or argue the materials were irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a volunteer opportunity at a withdrawal management centre.

The applicant named both St. Leonard's Community Services and Brant Community Healthcare System (BCHS) as respondents.

BCHS filed a request to be removed as a respondent, arguing it had no role in the operation of the centre.

The applicant agreed in writing that BCHS was not a proper respondent and did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered BCHS removed as a respondent.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the preliminary basis that it is a federally regulated telecommunications undertaking outside provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the jurisdictional facts were in dispute, the Tribunal ordered an in-person preliminary hearing to receive viva voce evidence and argument on the constitutional issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association membership based on race, disability, age, record of offence, and reprisal.

At the hearing, the applicant was emotionally overwrought and ultimately declined to testify or be cross-examined.

Following the testimony of the applicant's daughter and husband, the respondents argued that a prima facie case had not been established.

The applicant's representative conceded this point, and the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former live-in superintendent, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by altering his employment perks, demanding rent, and ultimately terminating his employment while he was on long-term disability.

The Tribunal found that the changes to his perks and the demand for rent were the result of new management enforcing strict rules, not discrimination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the employer did not fail to accommodate the applicant, as the medical evidence indicated he was totally disabled with no prognosis for a return to work, thereby frustrating the employment contract.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to allow a student to attend a school prom after the principal denied him the privilege following a 10-day suspension.

The applicant argued the denial was an uncommunicated extension of the suspension and thus reviewable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that attending a prom is a privilege, not a legal right, and the principal's decision was not a statutory power of decision capable of judicial review.

Even if reviewable, the court found the principal's decision was reasonable.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her seniority upon transferring into the bargaining unit.

The union had obtained a legal opinion and determined that pursuing the grievance would negatively impact the seniority rights of other bargaining unit members.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as it reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and balanced the competing interests of its members.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's business agent had signed the receipt portion of two membership cards despite not being the actual collector of the initiation fees, and subsequently signed a Form 9 Declaration without noting any exceptions.

The Board found that the union representative had knowingly made a false representation to the Board.

Given the strict standards for membership evidence and the necessity of complete disclosure on Form 9, the Board declined to give any weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.