Brian D. Mulroney

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration process.

She argued the arbitration hearing was cancelled without good reason.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was only briefly rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances and that the grievance process was not unduly delayed.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

The applicant argued that reactivation was necessary due to the departure of key witnesses and delays by the respondent in scheduling the arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not been unduly delayed and that reactivating the application would risk concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant's other requests were dismissed as premature.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that she did not want the union to raise human rights issues in her grievances.

The Tribunal found that the grievances raised similar facts and human rights issues, and that the union had carriage of the grievances.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the disclosure of his personal health information.

At a summary hearing, the applicant's unpaid friend and representative requested an adjournment because the applicant was hospitalized.

The respondent objected to the adjournment and to the representative acting on the applicant's behalf, citing a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment due to extraordinary circumstances but disqualified the representative from participating further, finding a real possibility of a conflict of interest arising from the representative's involvement in the underlying events.

The applicant, a Roman Catholic chaplain, was terminated by the respondent hospital for disclosing confidential patient information to third parties.

The applicant alleged that his termination was discriminatory on the basis of creed, arguing that his faith required him to disclose a patient's desire to commit suicide.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was due to the applicant disclosing the information to an unregulated third party outside the circle of care, not because of his creed, as hospital policy and privacy legislation permitted disclosure through proper channels to prevent imminent danger.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of disability (asthma) when it failed to hire her for a home-based customer service position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing that the applicant was one of many unsuccessful candidates in a highly competitive process and lacked relevant sales experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence establishing a link between the respondent's decision not to hire her and her disability.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing teleconference due to the death of her father and her need to attend his funeral.

The respondent argued the request should be dealt with under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, which requires exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and granted the adjournment.

An employee alleged constructive dismissal after his employer proposed moving him from a managerial role supervising staff into a newly created “Special Projects” position without management responsibilities.

The court held that the proposed change constituted a substantial unilateral alteration of a fundamental term of the employment contract because it removed supervisory authority and diminished status and prestige.

Evidence showed the employer had already decided to implement the change despite representing it as a discussion, confirming the employee’s perception that he had no real choice.

The court further held the employee was not required to mitigate by remaining in the altered position because it would have created humiliation and loss of dignity.

Damages were awarded based on a 12‑month notice period, partial bonus entitlements, compensation for stock option losses, and limited pre‑judgment interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal by his former employer, claiming he was denied several promotional opportunities in favour of younger candidates and subsequently laid off after seeking feedback on how to improve his chances of becoming a manager.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence, beyond mere speculation and the age differences between himself and the successful candidates, that could establish a link between his age and the respondent's decisions.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of establishing a reprisal claim, as the applicant's emails seeking feedback did not assert any Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and constructive dismissal.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on identical facts and seeking identical relief.

The Tribunal found that the civil Statement of Claim and the Application were identical in all respects.

As section 34(11) creates a mandatory bar against duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent breached a 2002 settlement agreement regarding the provision of Braille labels on exercise equipment.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis of delay, as the complaint was filed in 2007, more than one year after the alleged breach.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting his lack of participation in implementing the settlement and his continued use of the facility over several years without raising formal concerns.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of shares he would acquire upon employment.

The defendants sought to stay the action, arguing the dispute should be referred to arbitration pursuant to a shareholders' agreement and the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The application judge refused the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the dispute was not 'commercial' in nature and did not arise out of a 'transaction' as defined in the shareholders' agreement, thus falling outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The applicants brought a motion for review of an order by Abella J.A. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the underlying dispute or grant most of the requested remedies, such as reinstatement.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to seek the required leave to appeal under s. 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also rejected the applicants' claim that the Union or the Ontario Labour Relations Board had an obligation to provide them with counsel.

The applicant hospital brought an application under section 22 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board determined that the newly classified Health Information Professionals lacked a community of interest with the office and clerical bargaining unit and should be excluded.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and, pursuant to subsection 23(11) of the Act, declared OPSEU as the bargaining agent without requiring a representation vote.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer engaged in an unlawful lock-out and committed an unfair labour practice during collective bargaining.

The union argued the lock-out was unlawful because the employer had pressed to impasse a demand that the union waive its statutory rights to pursue grievances and Board applications regarding contracting out.

The Board found that while the employer's final offer included such a demand, the offer was withdrawn prior to the lock-out and was not pressed to impasse.

The union also alleged the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by distributing its final offer directly to employees.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the communication was an accurate explanation of the offer, provided after the union was informed, and did not constitute an attempt to bargain directly with employees.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry determined the outstanding remedial issue of the terms of an employment contract to be offered to the complainant following a finding of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Board ordered the respondent to offer the complainant a position as Co-ordinator of the Supervised Access Centre for a one-year term, renewable for a further year subject to performance.

The Board also ordered the respondent to reimburse the complainant for moving expenses up to $5,000 and provide a pay advance of $4,000.

Appeal from a summary judgment decision in a dispute involving a former senior employee who joined a competitor after signing a Canada-wide non-competition covenant and allegedly soliciting customers and employees.

The court held the evidentiary record was insufficient to declare the restrictive covenant enforceable on summary judgment, but equally insufficient to declare it unenforceable where the responding parties had not moved for that relief and genuine issues remained regarding customer relationships and geographic scope.

The court further held that the solicitation record disclosed genuine issues for trial concerning two groups of dentist customers, but not a third group.

The costs order was varied in light of the appellant's partial success, with each side to bear its own costs of the summary judgment motions and the appeal.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry determined the appropriate remedies following a finding that Kinark Child and Family Services and its manager, Harry Oswin, infringed James Moffatt's human rights.

Moffatt, a gay man, was subjected to a poisoned work environment due to discriminatory rumours, and later faced a retaliatory child abuse report to the Children's Aid Society.

The Board awarded Moffatt $10,000 in general damages and $10,000 for mental anguish for the discrimination, plus $6,000 in general damages and $10,000 for mental anguish for the reprisal.

The Board also awarded $13,800 for lost earnings, finding that Kinark's failure to address the rumours hindered Moffatt's re-employment.

Additional remedies included an order for Kinark to provide a positive reference, offer interview opportunities, and implement a human rights complaint procedure.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that Gibraltor Building Corp. Ltd. and a numbered company were a single employer.

While the Board found that the entities were under common control and carried on related activities in the residential construction industry, it dismissed the application.

The Board concluded that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights with Gibraltor by failing to assert them or contact the employer over a period of several years during which the collective agreement automatically renewed, despite having reason to believe the employer was active.