Caroline Jones

The applicant, an Assistant Crown Attorney, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour regarding his arrest and strip search by Toronto Police Service officers, and later amended it to include reprisal allegations against the Toronto Police Association (TPA).

The applicant also commenced civil actions against the respondents based on the same facts.

The respondents brought requests to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or to defer it pending the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the TPA, finding that the civil claim for defamation incorporated a remedial claim for reprisal that was indistinguishable from the human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the TPS respondents under section 34(11) because the civil claim relied on the Charter rather than the Code, but deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding to avoid duplicative litigation.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application as an abuse of process for the applicant's failure to comply with directions.

The applicant, a police constable, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, as well as reprisal, against his employer, his union (the Association), and a third-party ability management service.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the Association failed to assist the applicant in the accommodation process, organized a mediation meeting without his consent, and supported the use of the third-party service.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the denial of access to the central sick leave bank and the development of a new sick leave policy to proceed against the Association.

A police officer commenced a civil action alleging that the police association breached its duty of fair representation in relation to disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act.

The association brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement.

The court applied the Weber framework and examined the essential character of the dispute, concluding that the allegations concerned the association’s representation duties within the collective bargaining regime.

Because the dispute required interpretation and application of the collective agreement and related statutory scheme, jurisdiction lay exclusively with a labour arbitrator.

The court therefore held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested the removal of a named personal respondent, which the applicant consented to, and the Tribunal granted the request.

The Waterloo Regional Police Association (WRPA), the applicant's union, requested intervenor status.

The applicant opposed the intervention, alleging the WRPA had failed to assist him and discriminated against him by refusing legal funding.

The Tribunal granted the WRPA's request to intervene, finding that a union typically has a substantial interest in a member's human rights application and that the applicant's allegations against the union did not constitute exceptional circumstances to deny intervention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and perceived disability.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding a 2007 independent medical examination under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding they had been appropriately dealt with in a settled grievance.

The Tribunal also found no prima facie case for the race-related grounds due to a lack of nexus.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the entire application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.

The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.

The application against the GSB was dismissed.

Three parties brought motions to intervene in appeals from a judgment declaring two municipal elections invalid.

The successful candidate in one ward sought to be added as a party, a voter whose vote was discounted sought to intervene as a friend of the court, and a neighbouring municipality sought to intervene as a friend of the court.

The court granted all three motions, finding that the successful candidate had a direct interest, the voter offered a unique perspective on the voting process, and the neighbouring municipality could provide useful context on the impact of the lower court's decision on municipal elections generally.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a life-threatening struggle with an armed suspect.

Five weeks later, while suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, he overreacted to an intoxicated patron at a restaurant and engaged in out-of-character behaviour.

The employer investigated the incident as professional misconduct and ultimately terminated his probationary employment, despite receiving medical evidence that his behaviour was caused by PTSD.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by failing to fulfill its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate him.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's reinstatement, awarded $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the employer to develop a comprehensive accommodation policy for police officers with disabilities.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, requested the production of personnel and Labour Relations files of other probationary constables to compare performance concerns raised against him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the minimal probative value of the comparative evidence was outweighed by the prejudice to the respondents in compiling the files and the privacy interests of the third-party police officers.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Children's Aid Society and its employees regarding court-ordered affidavits prepared in a custody dispute involving her great-nephew, and the Society's failure to investigate her concerns.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondents were not providing a 'service' to the applicant within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The services, if any, were provided to the child and his parents or guardians, not the applicant, meaning there was no Code-protected relationship between the parties.

The applicant alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on multiple grounds, including race, sex, and age, when it terminated her employment and denied her severance pay.

At the hearing on the merits, after the applicant presented her case, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her Code-protected characteristics and the termination of her employment, noting that much of her evidence was illogical or internally inconsistent.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance had been filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondents supported deferral but indicated they would challenge the arbitrability of the grievance because the applicant was a probationary employee.

The Tribunal held that deferral was not appropriate in these circumstances, as the respondents intended to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response.

During the arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding matters outlined in a June 8, 2007 letter to the grievor.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the issues raised in the letter and its enclosures are covered by the arbitration proceedings.

Any ongoing or potential Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) processes regarding those issues are superseded by the arbitration process, and the parties may raise them as part of the arbitration.

Two applications for judicial review were brought regarding preliminary awards by a labour arbitrator.

Solidwear sought to review the arbitrator's decision denying it party standing as a potential related employer.

Valleycroft, a bankrupt employer, sought to review the arbitrator's decision refusing to allow it to argue that the union's grievance was untimely.

The Divisional Court dismissed a preliminary motion to quash Solidwear's application for delay.

The Court dismissed Solidwear's application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was not patently unreasonable.

However, the Court granted Valleycroft's application, holding that the arbitrator's refusal to hear arguments on the timeliness of the grievance was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted board of arbitration.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitration board's ruling.

The arbitration board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement to award aggravated or punitive damages for an unjust dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was correctness and that the board erred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the pragmatic and functional approach dictated a standard of patent unreasonableness due to strong privative clauses and the board's expertise in interpreting collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal concluded the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and restored its ruling.

The Union brought a motion for interim relief, requesting the Board to order the Employer to place the grievor on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of her grievances alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had exhausted her short-term sick leave and was on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favor the grievor, as there was no medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to work or that returning to work would cause her medical harm.

The Board also noted that granting the relief would subvert the Employer's accommodation and long-term income protection processes.

The Union brought a motion for interim relief requesting that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of several grievances.

The Employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, argued that particulars had not been provided, and objected to the Union relying on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances and the alleged adverse impact.

The Vice-Chair also ruled that the Union could not rely exclusively on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify, as the Employer had a right to cross-examination.

The grievor, a Property Assessor, was off work on long-term disability when the employer divested its Property Assessment Division to a new entity.

The employer and union negotiated an agreement whereby disabled employees had a one-year window to recover and accept a job offer with the new entity.

The grievor did not recover within the one-year window, and when he sought to return to work later, his position no longer existed in the Ontario Public Service.

The union grieved that the one-year limit and the failure to accommodate him constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the appropriate comparator group was employees whose jobs had been eliminated while on disability benefits, and that the one-year window was actually a beneficial grace period rather than discriminatory.

The parties previously reached a confidential settlement of two grievances.

The union brought the matter back before the arbitrator, alleging a dispute arising from the implementation of the settlement.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence, without loss of benefits or seniority, until the employer complies with the memorandum of settlement.

The arbitrator also set out notice requirements for the employer to advise the grievor of his placement and retained jurisdiction over further disputes.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order following a conference call.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the grievor's allegations to the Employer by October 18, 2004.

A mediation-arbitration date was set for November 15, 2004.

The Board noted that if the Union failed to provide the particulars, the Employer could bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.