Daniel R. McDonald

The applicant, a security guard employed by Securitas at the National Gallery of Canada, alleged discrimination after his position was eliminated during a restructuring.

Both respondents requested dismissal on the basis that they are federal undertakings outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that Securitas' provision of security services at the Gallery did not fall within provincial jurisdiction, as the duties were ordinary security functions and not integral to a federal undertaking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the National Gallery, finding it to be a federal undertaking and noting it was not the applicant's employer.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow his counsel to obtain medical documentation to support an accommodation request for a later start time and the use of a LiveScribe pen due to a disability.

The Tribunal had previously denied the accommodation request pending such documentation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment but granted the requested accommodations, noting that the issue was raised in a timely manner, some professional information from an academic setting was provided, and the respondent took a neutral position.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, the removal of personal respondents, and hearing accommodations for his counsel.

The Tribunal granted the removal of the personal respondents on consent.

Applying the threshold of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain third-party complaint records, dispatch records, and restructuring records, but denied requests for a voicemail recording and the applicant's complete work schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the accommodation requests for the applicant's counsel due to a lack of supporting medical documentation, with leave to renew the request.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against his former employer, Total Security Management (TSM), and the successor contractor, Securitas Canada Limited.

Garda Canada Security Corporation, which acquired TSM after the alleged events, requested to be removed as a respondent because it did not assume liability for prior claims.

TSM also requested to be removed, arguing the applicant was employed by Securitas at the time of termination.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove Garda as a respondent on consent, but denied TSM's request because the applicant alleged TSM employees influenced Securitas's decision not to accommodate him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, age, and association.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address issues of delay, whether the matter was appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement (s. 45.1), and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success against the union representative.

The Tribunal dismissed the untimely allegations for delay, finding no good faith explanation for the delay and that the incidents did not form a series.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining timely allegation under s. 45.1, finding the applicant had not agreed to the grievance settlement.

The application against the union representative was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant was directed to file a fresh application detailing the single remaining timely allegation.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal issued an interim decision resolving three procedural requests.

Bruce Power L.P. was granted intervenor status on consent to protect the confidentiality of documents.

Requests by both the applicant and a respondent to have certain witnesses testify by teleconference were granted.

The applicant's request to add internet photographs to his document list was also granted, subject to the respondents' right to challenge their admissibility and reliability at the hearing.

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 employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s claims for unpaid bonuses on the basis that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court examined the employment agreement and the employer’s bonus practices, finding the process for awarding bonuses was unilateral, opaque, and not explained to the employee.

The court held that the evidence did not clearly establish that the employee knew or ought to have known he had a claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The employer’s failure to disclose its interpretation of the bonus provisions and relevant sales information could amount to fraudulent concealment preventing the limitation period from running.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

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 requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application against her employer and co-workers due to delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the Interim Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

During the hearing process, the applicant was taken into custody and requested an indefinite abeyance of the proceedings pending his release.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for delay, arguing prejudice to their right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application, finding no breach of natural justice or actual prejudice established at this stage.

The Tribunal granted a three-month abeyance, directing the applicant to provide updates on his custody status and ability to attend, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by co-workers in 2009, discriminatory comments by a manager in 2010, and a false complaint leading to her removal from a work site.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2009 as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith despite the applicant's claims of mental health issues.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against several individual respondents and the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was allowed to proceed only against the employer and one manager regarding the 2010 discriminatory comments.

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 and reprisal in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, and creed.

The applicant also had an ongoing termination grievance filed by his union based on the same facts.

The respondents and the intervening union requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The appellant construction trade unions challenged the constitutionality of s. 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which allows a 'non-construction employer' to terminate collective agreements and bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the provision violated s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, finding that s. 127.2 does not substantially interfere with the process of collective bargaining because employees of non-construction employers can still organize under the general provisions of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.