Dirk Van de Kamer

The applicant, an educational assistant, alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs when it transferred her to a different school, and that it engaged in reprisal regarding her sick leave and long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision to transfer the applicant was based on her doctor's recommendation to negotiate a new work location due to workplace stress.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the new location did not meet her disability-related needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the employer withheld benefits or forms with an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a restricted temporary employee at The Beer Store, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed his hours were reduced to zero after he requested a brief accommodation for a minor soft tissue injury, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and co-workers.

He further alleged that a letter requiring him to clarify his availability for Sunday shifts was a reprisal for filing his human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the reduction in hours was due to the seasonal nature of the work and the applicant's low seniority status, not his accommodation request.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of harassment or that the respondent's request for clarification regarding Sunday availability was a reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and individual respondents.

The applicant's former union, CAW Local 414, filed a Request to Intervene to address any proposed resolution that might impact its bargaining rights.

The respondents did not object, but the applicant objected without providing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the union's Request to Intervene, noting its established practice that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the attendance of the applicant's physician at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's refusal to order the replacement of an allegedly improperly constituted pension advisory committee.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as neither the Pension Benefits Act nor the pension plan required the establishment of an advisory committee, and the letters of understanding regarding the committee were part of the collective agreement but not incorporated into the pension plan.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to advance their grievances to arbitration.

The grievances concerned the method of integrating employees affected by a consolidation of operations, specifically the dovetailing of seniority.

The Board found that the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was not unreasonable and that there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.