4 total
Applications dismissed; substance dealt with in arbitration and union representation issues outside Tribunal jurisdiction.
The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, a manager, his union, and union counsel, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisal.
The respondents requested dismissal at a preliminary hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer and manager under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding, despite the applicant's withdrawal from that process.
The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union and its counsel, finding the allegations related to the union's representation and collective agreement administration, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and do not establish a prima facie violation of the Code.
Motion to amend pleadings to add reprisal allegations allowed; reasonable perception of retaliation may suffice.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend its pleadings to include allegations of reprisal.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the amended pleadings disclosed no prima facie case of reprisal because they relied solely on the complainants' perceptions and beliefs regarding disciplinary actions.
The Adjudicator allowed the motion to amend, noting that previous jurisprudence established that a complainant's reasonable perception of retaliation could found a contravention of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, and that it was premature to dismiss the allegations before evidence was tendered.
Motion to amend human rights complaint to add reprisal denied for lacking proposed amended pleadings.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a complaint to add the ground of reprisal.
The original complaint alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after the respondent refused to provide the complainants time off to observe Greek Orthodox Good Friday.
The Commission relied on a disciplinary document to support the reprisal claim but failed to file proposed amended pleadings.
The adjudicator declined to allow the motion, noting that without proposed pleadings, the tribunal could not properly assess whether a prima facie case was established.
The Commission was ordered to serve and file proposed amended pleadings.
Motion to amend complaint to add reprisal denied pending filing of proposed amended pleadings.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to amend a human rights complaint to add the ground of reprisal, alleging that one of the complainants was disciplined for complaining about discrimination.
The Commission relied on a disciplinary document but did not file proposed amended pleadings.
The adjudicator declined to allow the motion at this time, finding that without proposed pleadings, the Board was effectively being asked to interpret the disciplinary document without a specific allegation.
