Christopher White

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Agreement settling all outstanding grievances and issues, which included a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the agreement under duress, fearing police involvement regarding alleged improper retention of funds.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of duress, noting the applicant had union representation and received the full benefit of the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove Janet Ferguson as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The corporate respondent, the Municipality of Lambton Shores, accepted deemed or vicarious liability for the alleged conduct of the personal respondent.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent.

The request was granted and Janet Ferguson was removed as a party.

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

Upon termination, the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package of up to six months of salary continuation.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had obtained legal advice, the settlement was not grossly unfair, and there was no evidence of economic duress or unconscionability.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant First Nation brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board pending judicial review.

The applicant challenged the Board's jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions regarding the applicability of labour laws to aboriginal persons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the Board lacked jurisdiction, as the Board has the concomitant jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions arising from its power to determine questions of law.

The Court also reiterated its practice of refusing to fragment administrative proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.

The City of Brantford Police Association applied to determine the status of certain civilian employees under Section 23(2) of the Police Act, arguing they were not 'senior officers'.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the Director of Planning and Research acted in a confidential capacity and the Supervisor of Central Records acted in a supervisory capacity, making them senior officers.

For the remaining two positions, the Commission found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they were not senior officers.

The application was dismissed.