Devon Paul

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision striking down the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, which eliminated TTC employees' right to strike and replaced it with binding interest arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the complete ban on strikes violates the employees' right to meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court further found that the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s. 1, as it did not demonstrate that the complete ban was minimally impairing or that its salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the workers' Charter rights.

The applicant moved to strike out an affidavit delivered by the respondent in response to an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The applicant argued the affidavit did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting a party to supplement the record of proceedings.

The court found that the bulk of the affidavit improperly appended and discussed documents already in the record.

However, the court noted that evidence regarding an unrecorded oral ruling could fall within the exception for procedural defects not apparent on the record.

The court struck the affidavit but granted leave for both parties to deliver new affidavit evidence strictly limited to their recollection of whether an oral ruling was made.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer modified the Senior Financial Accountant (SFA) position without notice and that the position should no longer be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer had significantly modified the SFA job content and authority between 1997 and 2014, removing managerial and confidential labour relations duties, and failed to notify the Union as required by the collective agreement.

Finding that the SFA position no longer met the statutory or collective agreement criteria for exclusion, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to move the position into the bargaining unit and pay union dues retroactive to the adoption of the 2014 job description.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The moving party school board brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party union's application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought review of arbitration awards concerning a wrongful dismissal grievance.

The single judge held that unless the determination of a motion to dismiss for delay is so clear as to leave no doubt, it should be decided by the full panel hearing the application.

Finding the issues were not clear enough for a single judge to determine, the court adjourned the motion to the full panel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that her PTSD prevented her from filing on time and that she was unaware of her legal rights.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue her rights and that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging wrongful termination due to a work-related illness and workplace complaints.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance on similar grounds, which was settled for a lump sum payment equal to 28 weeks of pay.

Although the applicant did not sign the Minutes of Settlement, he cashed the settlement cheque.

The Tribunal held that cashing the cheque constituted implicit acceptance of the settlement.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as its substance had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application on the morning of the first scheduled day of hearing.

The respondent requested costs and a declaration that the applicant was a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found insufficient grounds for a vexatious litigant declaration but noted the significant wasted resources and prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the application on the terms that the applicant is barred from filing future related applications against the respondent and that the allegations are declared unsubstantiated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (alcohol addiction).

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was previously settled during a grievance mediation/arbitration.

The applicant claimed he did not understand the settlement due to intoxication.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence unreliable, concluded he understood and accepted the settlement terms, and dismissed the application as the substance had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding.

The applicant, a steamfitter with a back injury, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent employer failed to provide appropriate modified work to accommodate the applicant's medical restrictions, breaching both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

Furthermore, the respondent terminated the applicant's employment for alleged time theft after conducting video surveillance while he was off sick.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability-related absence was a factor in his termination and that the surveillance did not establish a reasonable non-discriminatory explanation.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an employee of the respondent's Water Division, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after sustaining a knee injury at work.

He claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his medical restrictions and subjected him to reprisal for asserting his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses more credible and concluded that the respondent had accommodated the applicant's disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship by offering modified duties, office work, and assistance from other employees.

The Tribunal also found the applicant stymied the accommodation process by refusing to sign a medical consent form.

The reprisal allegation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it had an interest as the bargaining agent and knowledge of the facts.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union almost always has an interest in participating in Tribunal proceedings involving its members and the workplace.

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

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, the City of Toronto, and his union.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer respondents on consent, pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's conduct to a discriminatory ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination.

After multiple hearing dates and adjournments, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled continuation date, instead sending an email requesting the adjudicator be replaced due to alleged bias and stating the hearing was a waste of time.

The Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration, noting the risk of conflicting decisions if both proceedings continued concurrently.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that her previous representative withdrew his services and she had recently retained a new representative, requiring more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining a new representative shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on the same issue, which proceeded to arbitration where the respondent conceded liability for a specific period.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the issues raised in the application were substantially the same as those in the grievances, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical reasons and subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The bias allegation was based on the adjudicator's slight personal acquaintance with the intervenor's counsel and her prior participation in a mediation session.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's medical documentation provided some basis for her inability to attend the hearing due to an acute episode of back pain.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer, his union, a union representative, and the WSIB, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union and its representative should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously filed an unsuccessful duty of fair representation complaint with the OLRB based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations and dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the WSIB, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it merely challenged a benefits decision without raising a valid Code violation.