Carl W. Peterson

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing her application against her employer for alleged disability discrimination.

The Tribunal had found that the employer's actions, including placing the applicant on administrative leave, requesting an independent medical examination, and transferring her to another school, were not discriminatory and did not breach the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant was improperly seeking to have the court reweigh the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination based on disability against his employer and two individual supervisors regarding his return to work and accommodation.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondents and strike allegations from 2013 due to delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike the 2013 allegations, finding they could form part of the narrative.

The applicant brought multiple human rights applications against various taxi companies and the City of Toronto.

During a teleconference hearing to address preliminary issues, the applicant withdrew her allegations against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal and issued directions regarding the representation of a non-participating respondent, the potential consolidation of the applications, and the scheduling of a further hearing to determine whether an additional corporate respondent should be added.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Labour Arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement provision on protective clothing.

The employer required metatarsal safety boots, which the union argued constituted an 'exceptional' working condition obligating the employer to provide them.

The Arbitrator found the requirement was merely an enhanced safety policy, not an exceptional working condition.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court held that the Arbitrator's contextual interpretation fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was sent to the Tribunal by registered mail on June 22, 2009, but due to an unusually long transmission time by Canada Post, it was not received until July 3, 2009, missing the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal waived its strict receipt rule and applied the five-day deemed delivery rule for mailed documents.

The Tribunal deemed the application filed by June 27, 2009, and accepted it for processing.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging failure to accommodate his disability and discrimination in the union's settlement of his grievance.

The union had previously settled the applicant's termination grievance without his consent, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had dismissed his subsequent duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the applications had already been appropriately dealt with through the grievance process and the OLRB proceeding.

Following an appeal decision, the appellant requested a reconsideration, advising the court that the record regarding the Labour Relations Board proceedings was incomplete.

The appellant sought to proceed with a claim based on the alleged misuse of an Industry Fund.

The Court of Appeal declined to reconsider the matter, finding that the issue of the Board's jurisdiction under section 143 of the Labour Relations Act had not been previously decided by the Board.

The court held that the specialized tribunal should have the first opportunity to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction.

The appellant, a low-rise forming contractor, commenced an action against the respondent employers' association for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging misuse of an Industry Fund.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the association's statutory duty of fair representation and the reasonableness of levied fees, both of which are matters exclusively within the Board's jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application until two grievance arbitrations filed by the applicant's union were concluded.

The grievances dealt with the same subject matter as the application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as there were ongoing grievances based on the same facts and issues, and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of both grievances.

The respondent filed a late response to a human rights application, explaining that the delay was due to an error.

The Tribunal accepted the late response.

The respondent also requested that the application be deferred because the underlying facts were the subject of two union grievances referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to address the deferral request in her reply.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the repainting and repair of a water tower by the respondent employer was maintenance work, not work in the construction industry.

The union argued the Board used the wrong definition and denied natural justice by refusing to hear evidence about a different project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the excluded evidence was irrelevant, meaning there was no denial of natural justice.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued the union held no bargaining rights in the ICI sector.

The union relied on a 1986 grievance settlement, payment of damages, and a single month of union referrals to establish bargaining rights or an estoppel, conceding its 1986 voluntary recognition agreement was invalid for the ICI sector.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the union's evidence insufficient to establish bargaining rights in the ICI sector, noting that parties should not stumble into such significant statutory liabilities.

The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.

Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act against multiple corporate respondents.

At the hearing, the Board added several new respondents as requested by the applicant.

The Board granted an adjournment requested by some respondents and directed the applicant to provide full written particulars of the material facts and relief claimed against the newly added parties.

The Board noted that procedural fairness requires an applicant to provide written particulars rather than relying on verbal assertions.

A pre-hearing conference and hearing dates were scheduled.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all occasional teachers in the respondent's secondary panel in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The respondent disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, arguing against the separation of secondary and elementary panel occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the secondary panel occasional teachers constituted an appropriate bargaining unit, consistent with its established practice of mirroring the historical dichotomy between elementary and secondary school teachers.

A pre-hearing representation vote resulted in more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant, and the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the respondent employer violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement during pipeline construction along Highways 35/115.

The respondent argued that the work was governed by the Distribution Pipeline Agreement and that it had complied with its terms.

The Board interpreted the definitions of 'mainline' and 'distribution' pipelines in the collective agreements, finding the language unambiguous.

The Board concluded that the work in question, which was downstream from the first metering station where gas pressure was reduced and transformed, fell squarely within the definition of distribution pipeline work.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Board considered a referral of a grievance to arbitration and a complaint over an assignment of work regarding concrete forming work at the Kipling Acres Home for the Aged.

The parties disputed whether the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board decided to defer further consideration of the matters until February 16, 1987, to allow an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner to attempt to mediate a resolution to the broader dispute between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders' Association and various unions over concrete forming work.