Claire Vachon

The applicant, a long-term occasional teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin.

He claimed he was unfairly assigned courses he was not qualified to teach, denied support, and ultimately terminated during his probationary period because he is a visible minority from Africa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differently from other teachers hired at the same time and that his termination was due to his inability to manage his classroom, not discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a school principal, alleged that his supervisor and the school board discriminated against him on the basis of disability and reprised against him for a previous human rights complaint.

The respondents maintained that the supervisor's actions were legitimate performance management in response to serious staff complaints.

During the merits hearing, after hearing the supervisor's evidence, the Tribunal considered whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to dismiss an application during a hearing if there is no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding the supervisor's evidence credible and concluding that her actions were untainted by the applicant's disability or prior complaint, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicants, members of the Raelian Church of Canada, alleged that the respondent school board terminated their service contracts because of their creed.

The parties consented to mediation-arbitration and asked the Tribunal to determine the issue of discrimination based on written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicants by terminating their service contracts because of their creed, contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding remedies.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation against his former employer, a union, and several individuals.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted a request to remove the employer's counsel as a personal respondent, as the employer accepted responsibility for her actions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint against the union and its representative for lack of jurisdiction, finding no allegations that they discriminated against the complainant based on his sexual orientation.

However, the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the complaint against a co-worker who allegedly made comments about the complainant's sexual orientation to the employer, allowing that portion of the complaint to proceed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.