David Chondon

The respondents requested the summary dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the termination of a social work practicum, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant also requested to add Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care as an organizational respondent.

The Tribunal denied the requests to dismiss, finding that the factual disputes regarding the practicum's termination and the timing of events required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add Baycrest as a respondent, noting it could be vicariously liable for its employees' actions and could provide effective remedies.

The applicant, an 88-year-old volunteer denturist, alleged age discrimination after the respondent terminated his volunteer clinical services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's communication regarding privacy and insurance concerns was poor, the applicant provided no evidence linking the termination of his volunteer role to his age.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination following his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a realistic alternative to signing the release and had consulted a lawyer, meaning the release was not signed under economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant union brought an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Several responding parties sought to bring a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint against them on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed that the prima facie motion be heard in writing and set a schedule for submissions.

The parties agreed on the voting status of one individual, and the Board directed the counting of the ballots from the representation vote, deferring the determination of the status of two other individuals.

The responding employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for reconsideration and request for relief under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing they were filed outside the Board's time limits.

The union had filed the applications after discovering alleged employer misconduct following the termination of a key union supporter shortly after a certification vote.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that while the applications were filed outside the standard time limits, the union had acted with due diligence upon learning of the allegations, and the potential that employer intimidation delayed the reporting of the misconduct warranted relieving against the time limits.

The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.

The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.

The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.