Daniel R. McDonald

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 requested that his physician be permitted to testify by teleconference at the hearing, citing travel distance and the financial impact of missing a day of practice.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the physician's evidence was central to the case and that in-person testimony was necessary to properly examine the witness on extensive medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that given the extensive and key nature of the proposed evidence and the need to review detailed medical documents, it would be impractical and inappropriate to conduct the examination by teleconference.

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 parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving their dispute, with the arbitrator remaining seized of any implementation issues.

A dispute arose regarding the timing of the payment of a retiring allowance.

Following submissions and on consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered that the retiring allowance be paid forthwith.

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, a long-term employee, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of family status and multiple disabilities, failed to accommodate him, and ultimately terminated his employment due to his disabilities.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he could not adapt to a modernized work environment and due to concerns about his work ethic and integrity.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was treated differently due to his family status or disabilities, nor that the employer failed to accommodate any medically supported restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on legitimate performance and integrity concerns, not on any Code-protected ground, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately one year and eight months after the limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to process a grievance related to the same events, and subsequently needed time to find a lawyer and the Tribunal's contact information.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of another legal proceeding does not constitute a valid explanation for delay, and that the applicant failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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.

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

During the Case Resolution Conference, the respondents brought motions to dismiss the application for failure to establish a prima facie case, to remove the personal respondent, and to dismiss certain allegations for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the applicant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, that the personal respondent's removal was best addressed in closing submissions, and that the allegations fell within the one-year series of incidents provision.

The Tribunal issued case management directions for the continuation of the hearing.