Daniel R. McDonald

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, interest, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of the frequency and time commitments of his pre-accident activities to allow for a proper comparison with his post-accident abilities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life from either a musculoskeletal or psychological perspective.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal.

The employee had refused to perform temporary duties in the shipping department unless he was paid the higher wage rate associated with that position.

The employer treated this as a resignation or, alternatively, just cause for termination due to insubordination.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer's request was reasonable and lawful based on company policy and past practice, and that the employee's repeated refusals constituted a repudiation of an essential condition of his employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Ace Marmon appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against SanMar Canada.

Marmon claimed he was fired without cause, while SanMar asserted he resigned or was terminated for insubordination after refusing temporary shipping duties at his regular pay rate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the Deputy Judge.

The court upheld the finding that Marmon's refusal constituted repudiation of an essential employment condition and insubordination, justifying dismissal.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent Securitas sought production of minutes of settlement between the applicant and a former respondent, Pepsi.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the settlement quantum to prevent double recovery, applying an exception to settlement privilege.

The applicant's request to amend his application to significantly increase the damages claimed was denied due to delay and lack of material change in circumstances.

The applicant's requests for production of internal correspondence were granted in part regarding the respondent All Star Security's hiring process, but denied regarding Securitas and Pepsi for being overbroad or lacking arguable relevance.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex against her employer, Securitas, her supervisor, and the client company, Toyota, where she worked as a security guard.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against Toyota and its employee, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no link between their actions and the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against Securitas and the supervisor regarding a July 2013 disciplinary incident as an abuse of process, noting that the applicant had already received the benefit of a grievance settlement regarding those issues.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged unfair treatment and her sex.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, arguing her employment was for a fixed term of one year.

The defendant contended it was an indefinite term.

The court found the employment contract, comprising an email and an attached agreement, clearly established a one-year fixed term.

Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the unexpired term without mitigation.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The application was previously deferred due to a CCAA stay.

The respondent requested reactivation with the consent of the Monitor, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal also directed a preliminary/summary hearing to address whether the allegations are untimely, whether they have no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the applicant's request to add individual respondents should be granted.

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

The respondent was subject to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The applicant agreed to the deferral, but the respondent opposed it, arguing that other applications were proceeding and that delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal held that it is bound by the CCAA stay and that the order lifting the stay for unionized employees did not apply to the applicant, who was a manager.

The application was deferred until the stay is lifted or leave is granted.

The respondent employer named the union (IBEW) as an additional respondent in its response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the union because the employer did not identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by the union.

The employer agreed it made no specific allegations but reserved the right to do so in the future.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding it plain and obvious that the application raised no matters against it.

The applicant, a mobile security guard, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability, specifically his need for time off for surgery.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to restructuring and performance issues, and denied knowledge of the surgery request.

The Tribunal found that the Division Manager was likely aware of the surgery request prior to the termination and that it was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was tainted by discrimination and awarded the applicant $7,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order to compel the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical documentation.

The applicant had refused to disclose her medical records, claiming they were sensitive and privileged.

The Tribunal held that by alleging a failure to accommodate her medical conditions and claiming medical impact from the alleged discrimination, the applicant had put her medical status in issue.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical documentation, noting that legally recognized privilege does not extend to ordinary medical records in this context.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application, increase the remedy requested, and add The Jim Pattison Group as a respondent.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the application but opposed the amendment to the remedy and the addition of the new respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add the respondent, noting that the exact relationship between the respondents should be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, finding no prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was premature as the parties were still resolving outstanding damages.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration proceeding had concluded, as the arbitrator's decision explicitly terminated the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application reactivated.

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

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of another proceeding between the parties.

After the other proceeding concluded, the respondent requested the application be reactivated.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew, and the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal direction requiring her to indicate whether she intended to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the importance of dealing with applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate a deferred application following the conclusion of another proceeding between the same parties.

The applicant did not file a response, and her counsel informed the Tribunal that she was no longer retained.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the respondent complied with the Rules of Procedure and the applicant did not oppose.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed within seven days, failing which the application would likely be deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent and awarding damages based on a 16-month notice period.

The employer argued the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of the mining industry's cyclical nature, finding the respondent was not obliged to accept a recall position to mitigate, setting a 16-month notice period, and determining the termination date under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the respondent was constructively dismissed upon recall to a substantially different position.

The applicant, a female electrician, alleged that she was denied a promotion to a supervisory position because of her sex and as a reprisal for previously complaining about gender-based harassment.

During the merits hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the successful male candidates had superior paper qualifications and that there was no evidence linking the hiring committee's decision to the applicant's sex or her prior harassment complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because an outstanding grievance regarding the termination had been referred to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the union would not raise a breach of the Human Rights Code at arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

During a hearing, the respondents raised concerns that the applicant's paralegal representative had a conflict of interest because he and the applicant resided together as roommates.

The respondents requested the representative be disqualified, arguing there was a risk of inappropriate communication during an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the concerns entirely speculative and noting that the risk of inappropriate communication was not materially greater than between any client and their legal representative.