Civita Gauley

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against his employer and union.

The original decision found that a labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the application of s. 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the original decision correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Figliola and subsequent Tribunal jurisprudence.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and related accommodation requests.

The respondent employer maintained that she was terminated for cause after an internal investigation concluded she had improperly obtained an employee discount for her husband's meal, which the employer viewed as theft.

The Tribunal found that while the employer's discount policy may have been unclear and inconsistently applied, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant's pregnancy or accommodation requests played any role in the decision to terminate her employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who had a drug addiction, was terminated from his employment with the corporate respondent for violating a Last Chance Agreement.

His union grieved the termination, but a labour arbitrator upheld the discharge and found no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination by both the employer and the union.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the union's alleged failure to properly represent the applicant was not linked to a Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal addressed three preliminary requests.

First, the applicant's initial request to defer the application pending a grievance process was denied because the grievance process had concluded.

Second, the Union's request to intervene was denied because it was already named as a respondent and thus had full party standing.

Third, the City's request for further particulars was resolved as the applicant provided sufficient information, and the City was directed to file its Response.