Elizabeth Nurse

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 filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging that a previous settlement agreement was signed under duress and should be set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over such applications where there is an allegation that a term of the settlement has been breached.

Because the applicant did not allege a breach, the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union withdrew her related grievance.

The respondent did not oppose reactivation but requested the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the allegations fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

However, noting it had not received the applicant's medical evidence intended to explain the delay, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the medical evidence within 7 days before deciding on the request to dismiss.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that granted her request to withdraw her human rights application but imposed a term declaring her allegations unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal found that imposing such a term conflicted with established jurisprudence, which holds that a withdrawal does not implicate any finding on the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and rescinded the term declaring the allegations unsubstantiated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being denied several positions with the respondent.

The respondent argued that a prior settlement agreement and release barred the applicant from raising allegations about job competitions that pre-dated the settlement.

The Tribunal held that the release barred the applicant from pursuing allegations about positions that pre-dated the execution of the settlement.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with allegations regarding two positions that post-dated the settlement, but was prohibited from challenging the reasons for his 2012 termination.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent and dismiss parts of the human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the organizational respondent had implicitly assumed liability for her actions.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether the older factual assertions were separate allegations or context for timely allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of concurrent union grievances.

The applicant subsequently instructed her union to withdraw the grievances in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.

As there was no longer an ongoing concurrent proceeding, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate.

The applicants, spouses employed by the respondent school board, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on creed after being denied paid time off for Greek Orthodox Good Friday because they could not provide a letter from their priest confirming attendance.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications, granted the union intervenor status, and removed the individual supervisors and HR manager as personal respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was fully capable of responding to and remedying any Code infringement arising from the enforcement of its policy.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the termination of his employment.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal granted CUPE intervenor status, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by bargaining unit members.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and unions, relating to events dating back to 1998 and a 2004 arbitration.

The applicant claimed the application was timely because she received financial records in September 2012 confirming no interpreter was paid for during the 2004 arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of confirming documents did not constitute a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5167, requested to intervene as the bargaining agent for the applicant's bargaining unit.

The applicant opposed the intervention, citing a separate application filed against the union.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its standard practice of granting intervention status to a bargaining agent in employment discrimination cases absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and two union locals.

Following her termination, a grievance was filed and an arbitrator was selected.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union locals should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

All parties agreed the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding, but the union locals requested dismissal prior to deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the entire application, finding that the issue of whether there is no reasonable prospect of success against the union locals could be better assessed after the grievance proceeding concludes.

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

Following confirmation that the union grievance was withdrawn, the applicant indicated a wish to proceed with the application.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4153, requested to intervene on the basis that the outcome could affect bargaining unit employees and matters covered by the collective agreement.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury and terminated her employment while on sick leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to a potential delay in filing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the parties were involved in ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings dealing with the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceedings overlapped significantly with the human rights application and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The union's unopposed request to intervene was granted.

The applicant's request to add two individual respondents was denied, as the corporate respondent accepted liability and no compelling reason existed to add them.

The respondents' request to remove the individual respondent Kevin Cochrane was also denied, as he was a central figure in the allegations and a remedial order against him was possible.

The Tribunal also modified the parties' disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her former employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability.

The applicant had previously settled a grievance regarding her termination, signing minutes of settlement and a release that resolved all employment matters and withdrew her human rights complaint.

The applicant argued the settlement was signed under duress and was a charade.

The Tribunal held that allowing the applications to proceed would be an abuse of process, as the settlement fully addressed the human rights issues and there was no factual foundation to support the claim of duress or discriminatory conduct by the union in reaching the settlement.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in the termination of his employment.

The applicant's union had concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral due to anticipated delays, while the respondents supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the facts and issues overlapped significantly and that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, making deferral appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a Black woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin by repeatedly denying her full-time positions in favour of less qualified White candidates.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had identified specific incidents and proposed evidence that could establish a link between the events and the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and granted the applicant's union full party status to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and a personal respondent.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the applicant's request for reinstatement.

Applying established principles, the Tribunal removed the named personal respondent and denied the applicant's request to add another, finding the corporate respondent could adequately respond to and remedy the alleged Code infringements.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application on consent.