Daniel McDonald

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent union requested an adjournment because it had transferred the file to new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled dates.

The respondent employer (CFJ) requested an order altering the normal order of proceedings so that the union would cross-examine and call its case first, to accommodate CFJ's out-of-town witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal also denied CFJ's request to alter the order of proceedings, directing the parties to confer on witness scheduling instead.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal after being denied a promotion.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's request to strike allegations of incidents occurring outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant could adduce evidence of past incidents as background information to support her reprisal claim, provided the incidents were sufficiently particularized and relevant.

The Tribunal excluded evidence of several unrelated incidents and limited the witness lists for both parties to ensure a fair and expeditious hearing.

The respondents requested to consolidate the applicant's human rights application with another pending application.

However, the applicant requested to withdraw the other application, which was granted in a separate decision.

Consequently, the respondents' request to consolidate was dismissed as moot, and the matter was referred to mediation.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application against his union and its officials, which alleged failure to properly represent him regarding workplace discrimination.

The intervenor employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was an abuse of process because the applicant was pursuing a separate application against the employer on overlapping facts.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw without conditions, finding no abuse of process and noting that the employer's resources were not significantly engaged by the withdrawal.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an order for the production of various documents from the respondents, Securitas and Toyota.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and found that most of the documents were either no longer in existence, not in the respondents' possession, or not arguably relevant to the remaining allegations.

The Tribunal ordered Securitas to produce one specific notebook that was arguably relevant to the issue of fire extinguisher inspections.

The Tribunal also provided case management directions requiring the parties to file outstanding materials and a revised witness statement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status.

The applicant's union, United Steelworkers Local 9597, filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it may be affected by any remedy ordered.

The applicant objected to the union's participation, noting her previous allegations against the union had been dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, finding that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was ill and unavailable.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing delay and prejudice, and requested that the scheduled dates be used for case management or mediation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the presence of fully briefed counsel is fundamental to hearing fairness and that counsel illness is an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also declined to use the dates for case management, noting that new counsel could not properly handle those issues at this stage.

The applicant, a security guard alleging discrimination on the basis of age and creed and reprisal, sought production of seniority lists, birth dates of specific employees, and CCTV/access records.

The respondent sought production of the applicant's medical documentation and communications between the applicant's counsel and the union.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the seniority lists and birth dates, and to confirm its non-possession of the CCTV records.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce the requested communications with the union, noting that the medical documentation had already been provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status against her employer, the site owner, and her union.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations relating to incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application, finding they did not constitute a series of incidents and the delay was not in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success regarding the duty of fair representation or breastfeeding accommodation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the employer and the site owner, finding that the site owner's actions fell within the scope of employment under section 5 of the Code and that the applicant had pointed to potential evidence of differential treatment based on sex.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents failed to accommodate his absence and terminated his employment.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order to exclude the respondents' proposed evidence relating to his criminal charges and police custody, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the proposed evidence of police officers regarding the applicant's whereabouts and ability to communicate appeared relevant to the issues in dispute, and that the admissibility of documentary evidence would be best determined during the hearing.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him with respect to employment and union membership because of his disability.

The applicant was denied a Team Leader position due to medical restrictions, and the union declined to pursue a grievance on his behalf.

The Tribunal found that the union did not participate in the formulation of a discriminatory work rule, nor did it impede the employer's reasonable efforts to accommodate, as no such efforts were made.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a union's failure to advocate or pursue a grievance on a human rights issue is not, in itself, a violation of the Code absent evidence that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that she experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of age, claiming that the personal respondent called her an 'old hag' during a telephone conversation about a job application.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting that she failed to mention the alleged comment in multiple subsequent written communications, including an abusive 'news flash' document and a formal letter of complaint to management.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that the applicant became aggressive and abusive when told she could not meet with the hiring manager.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following her return from a medical leave.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package upon her termination.

The Tribunal found that the release encompassed human rights claims and that the applicant failed to establish duress, lack of consideration, or misrepresentation sufficient to invalidate the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a dispatcher, alleged sex discrimination and reprisal after a workplace incident where a consultant yelled and swore at her over a delivery mistake.

The Tribunal found that while the consultant's conduct was inappropriate, the evidence did not support the allegation that he called her a gender-based slur or that the conduct was based on sex.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed because the applicant's internal complaints prior to her termination did not allege sex discrimination or invoke the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex after his employment was terminated.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant and the respondent had signed a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a grievance related to his termination, which included a provision that the applicant would not commence any claim or complaint against the respondent.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because it violated the settlement agreement.

The applicant contended that he signed the settlement under economic duress because he needed the Record of Employment changed to receive employment insurance benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the settlement and was not under sufficient economic duress to invalidate the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.