Dan Shields

The Association sought pre-hearing production of documents, including an unredacted Underwriting Agreement between the Employer and Canada Life, in a grievance concerning the dismissal of an employee for allegedly submitting false benefits claims.

The Employer and Canada Life argued the redacted portions contained proprietary and irrelevant information.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the current insurance policies and documents delineating the responsibilities and risk allocation between the Employer and Canada Life, while permitting the Employer to redact privileged or irrelevant/sensitive information provided it supplies a written description of the basis for each redaction.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging racial discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all email communications between himself and his supervisor over a six-month period.

The respondent objected, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and that relevant emails had already been provided.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the respondent to produce all emails sent by the applicant to the supervisor during the specified period, along with any responses, as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's allegation that the supervisor failed to respond to his emails.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the attendance management program at two respondent work sites.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applicant had standing against William Osler Health Centre and if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant was employed solely by Carillion Services Inc. and lacked standing against William Osler.

Furthermore, the applicant's theoretical concerns about the attendance program, which had been revised following a union policy grievance settlement, did not raise issues under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his employment termination.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance arbitration regarding the same facts and issues was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, consistent with its general practice of avoiding concurrent legal proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of documents, including his employment file and PDA records.

The Tribunal declined to consider the request because the Application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant may renew the request if the Application is re-activated.

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the respondent Union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the Union failed to properly represent him in a grievance regarding his termination, which he claimed was due to his previous advocacy for racialized employees.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the Union's actions were based on discriminatory factors, and dismissed the application against the Union.

The Tribunal also denied the Company respondents' request to defer the application, as the grievance was no longer being pursued.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after his employment was terminated following the deferral of his initial application.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance and arbitration proceeding regarding the termination.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, noting that labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and deferral avoids duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin against multiple former employers.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations of discrimination based on unsupported suspicion and speculation, with no direct or circumstantial evidence linking her terminations or lack of promotion to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under the collective agreement.

The applicant's bargaining agent sought to intervene and supported the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and deferred the application, noting that the grievance raised the same issues and labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because of ongoing union grievances regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal found that the grievances had not been referred to arbitration despite the passage of time and had been held in abeyance.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that proceeding with the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.