4 total
Human rights application deferred pending final decision from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding his workers' compensation claims.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.
The parties agreed that the question of whether the applicant had an ongoing disability was critical to the allegations and was currently the subject of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending a final decision from the WSIAT.
Request to testify by telephone denied; adjournment granted to explore in-person or video conference options.
The applicant, a migrant worker residing in Trinidad, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
He requested an order permitting him and a witness to testify by telephone, arguing he lacked status in Canada and could not attend the hearing in person.
The respondent opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request to testify by telephone at this time, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant could not attend in person or via video conference.
However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to explore obtaining a visitor's visa or arranging compatible video conferencing from Trinidad.
Township found to be the employer of family resource centre staff for pay equity purposes.
The Tribunal determined whether the Corporation of the Township of Michipicoten or the Crown in Right of Ontario was the employer of employees at Chadwic Home, a Family Resource Centre, for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.
While the Crown provided significant funding, the Township exercised comprehensive day-to-day control over operations, hiring, wages, and terms of employment.
The Tribunal concluded that the Township was the employer and upheld the Review Officer's order.
Employer violated statutory freeze and interfered with union by unilaterally reducing hours and dealing directly with employees.
The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period and interfered with the union's administration by unilaterally reducing employee hours and dealing directly with employees.
The employer, a newly acquired nursing home, implemented staffing changes resulting in reduced hours for several employees without the union's consent.
The Board found that the collective agreement did not give the employer the right to unilaterally establish new normal hours of work.
The Board held that the employer violated the statutory freeze and interfered with the union by bypassing it to deal directly with employees.
The employer was ordered to compensate affected employees.
