David J. Bannon

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his medical restrictions regarding chemical exposure.

The respondent sought dismissal on the grounds that the applicant had previously filed a substantially similar complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 2007, and that the current application was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the core allegations regarding the failure to accommodate in 2002 were the same as those in the 2007 OHRC complaint, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a 2012 meeting between the parties did not constitute a new incident of discrimination but was merely a continuing consequence of the 2002 decision.

As the application was filed out of time and no good faith reason for the delay was established, the application was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent both filed written submissions regarding the respondent's late delivery of arguably relevant documents.

The applicant refused to accept the courier delivery of the documents, which were delivered approximately three weeks late.

The applicant requested that the hearing be expedited and the respondent be precluded from presenting documents at the hearing.

The respondent requested that the applicant be directed to accept the late delivery.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to accept the delivery, finding no real prejudice to the applicant, and denied the applicant's requests.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal and failure to accommodate.

The respondent did not oppose the request but filed additions to its response.

The Canadian Auto Workers union requested intervenor status to address its efforts to accommodate the applicant.

The Tribunal granted both the request to amend the application and the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of a related grievance.

The application alleged a failure to accommodate the applicant's needs arising from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance.

Following its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity following an incident where he was physically restrained at work after suffering a seizure.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the original adjudicator had improperly attributed liability to the respondent for the actions of third-party paramedics and police officers without establishing a relationship under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

As the original adjudicator was no longer with the Tribunal, a new hearing was ordered.

The applicant alleged gender discrimination and reprisal in her employment with General Motors.

She claimed that men were preferentially hired into Tool & Die positions over her, despite her qualifications as a Mould Maker.

The Tribunal found that the hiring decisions were based on collective agreement provisions, preferential hiring rights, and specific trade qualifications, not gender.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding no evidence that the discipline imposed on the applicant was intended as retaliation for her human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his pension entitlement following a workplace closure.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that while the grievance settlement constituted a proceeding, it only addressed the applicant's entitlement to a vehicle voucher and did not deal with the pension-related age discrimination allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against her employer and union, alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association on the basis of sex and disability.

The complaints stemmed from a dispute over the volume of a radio played by co-workers and alleged subsequent harassment.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no medical evidence of a disability and failed to show that the alleged harassment or the respondents' handling of her complaints was based on her sex.

The applications were dismissed.

The respondent worked as an illustrator for the appellant until her employment was terminated.

She initially filed an Employment Standards Act complaint against the employment agency that placed her, but later withdrew it and commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the appellant.

The appellant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by s. 64.3(2) of the ESA, which prevents an employee from commencing a civil action relating to the same termination if they have filed a complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory bar only prevents a civil action against the same alleged employer against whom the complaint was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in the appearances listed in its previous decision dated October 22, 2001.

The appearances were amended to correctly reflect the representatives for the applicant and the responding party.

The union and the employer both sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the employer committed unfair labour practices during a union organizing campaign.

The employer challenged the Board's refusal to bifurcate the hearing, its decision to allow the union to argue damages, and several specific performance orders, including compulsory union meetings and providing employee contact information.

The union sought to expand the scope of damages, recover legal costs, and adjust the timeline for a fresh representation vote.

The Board dismissed all reconsideration requests, finding no important issues of Board policy or obvious errors that warranted varying the original orders, and directed the employer to immediately provide the union with the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.