George Avraam

The respondent employer brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the applicant's union, the United Steelworkers, as a respondent, alleging the union prevented the implementation of a reasonable accommodation.

The applicant opposed the request, stating she made no allegations against the union.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations against the union by the applicant, noting the respondent could still call evidence regarding the union's actions, and concluding that adding the union at an advanced stage would cause undue delay.

The moving parties (respondents in a judicial review application) brought a motion to strike twelve affidavits filed by the responding parties.

The underlying application challenged a university tribunal's decision to suspend several tenured professors for workplace harassment.

The court struck the affidavit of an expert witness because it improperly opined on Ontario law.

However, the court declined to strike the remaining affidavits, finding that the evidence regarding the pre-hearing investigation, hearing process, and post-hearing impacts was relevant to the responding parties' procedural fairness arguments and should be assessed by the panel hearing the judicial review.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the respondent university for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the university failed to accommodate his post-concussion syndrome during a comprehensive exam.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator did not depart from established jurisprudence when she concluded the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking the adverse impact he experienced to his disability.

McMaster University sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the agreement required McMaster to consider employees' work on behalf of the union as part of their 'professional service and professional activity' for the purpose of determining merit pay.

McMaster argued this interpretation was unreasonable as it conferred a financial benefit without clear language, created a conflict of interest, and exposed the university to claims of anti-union conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and did not create an absurdity.

The applicant, a doctoral student with post-concussion syndrome, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability during his comprehensive examination.

Mid-way through the hearing, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had provided all accommodations recommended by the applicant's medical professionals.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence linking his requested accommodations—specifically, changing the exam format to eliminate the written component or removing all deadlines—to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success for either the substantive or procedural duty to accommodate claims and dismissed the application.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for malicious prosecution and awarding $550,000 in punitive damages to the respondent estate.

The deceased had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as a building inspector, after which the municipality withheld exculpatory evidence from the police, leading to criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of malicious prosecution, concluding the municipality initiated the proceedings by withholding evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on punitive damages in part, reducing the award to $450,000 because the trial judge failed to account for the punitive elements of the substantial compensatory damages and costs already awarded.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the applicant had the necessary information to raise the allegations much earlier and that allowing the amendment at this late stage would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also issued orders regarding hearing management, including bifurcating the hearing into liability and remedy phases, setting time estimates for witness testimony, and permitting the applicant to transcribe the hearing at his own expense.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The applicant's union, the Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to intervene in the proceeding.

The respondent consented to the request, and the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had an interest in the outcome as the bargaining agent for registered nurses at the respondent's workplace.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her action.

The application judge found evidence that the plaintiff lacked capacity to instruct counsel to commence the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in principle by failing to consider Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Instead of dismissing the action, it should have been stayed under Rule 15.02 until an application for a litigation guardian could be made.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal set aside, and the action stayed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability against his employer, McMaster University, and several individuals.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individuals because the university accepted vicarious liability and their actions were not the central focus.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the applicant's direct supervisor, as the allegations against him included harassment and were central to the application.

Following a direction from the Court of Appeal to reconsider liability for malicious prosecution, the court determined whether a municipality could be liable for initiating criminal proceedings against a former employee.

The court applied the four‑part test from Nelles v. Ontario and examined whether the municipality initiated the prosecution, lacked reasonable and probable grounds, acted with malice, and whether the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

The court found the municipality withheld exculpatory information from police regarding missing municipal files and prior internal investigations, thereby undermining the independence of the police investigation and becoming the proximate cause of charges that resulted in an acquittal.

The court concluded the prosecution was pursued to justify the employee’s dismissal and shield the municipality from civil liability.

Liability for malicious prosecution was established, but damages were fixed at a nominal amount pursuant to agreement of counsel.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent, Martin Stampfli, from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant took no position.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent, McMaster University, had expressly assumed vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling reason to proceed against the individual and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship due to the employer's application of ITAR regulations, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on procedural matters.

The Tribunal limited the intervening Union's participation to written and oral submissions, denying its request to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses to avoid undue delay and repetition.

The Tribunal permitted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene regarding Charter issues.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that extrinsic evidence from the applicant's former counsel regarding the interpretation of a prior Minutes of Settlement and Release was inadmissible, as the language of the release was clear and unambiguous.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in relation to her return to work from maternity leave, specifically regarding disciplinary sanctions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to defer the application pending the civil claim's outcome.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek remedies under the Code, meaning s. 34(11) did not apply.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting the civil trial was at least two years away, which diminished the risk of inconsistent findings.

The requests for dismissal and deferral were denied.

The respondents, an employer and a union, brought requests to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaints under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the complaints had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had appropriately dealt with the allegations against the union in a section 74 duty of fair representation application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the employer's request, finding that a grievance settlement between the employer and the union, which the complainant refused to sign and which did not explicitly address discrimination, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations against the employer.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed human rights complaints against the university and two student unions, alleging discrimination because her disability prevented her from taking enough credits for full-time status, thereby denying her certain benefits.

The university and one student union requested dismissal of the applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the university's internal Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the internal tribunal hearing constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against the university.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the student union as an abuse of process, noting the internal tribunal had recorded that complaint as resolved.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a labour arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator found that 23 unionized employees were on 'temporary layoff' and entitled to Supplemental Unemployment Benefits under the collective agreement, despite the employer initially deeming the layoffs permanent.

The Court of Appeal applied the newly released Dunsmuir framework, determining that the standard of review for a labour arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement is reasonableness.

The Court concluded that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was based on the factual background, the terms of the SUB Plan, and relevant law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought an action for constructive dismissal, alleging the employer unilaterally changed his working conditions and reduced his wages.

These events occurred after a union was certified but before a collective agreement was reached, triggering the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer successfully moved to strike the action on the basis that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Weber analysis to find that the essential character of the dispute was a breach of the statutory freeze, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.