Grant Bowers

The respondent school board brought a request for an order directing the applicant to submit to an independent medical examination (a neurological examination) to assess his communication abilities.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the examination lacked probative value.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to make such an order but held that compelling a medical examination should only occur in the clearest of cases.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the examination was not necessary to determine whether discrimination occurred between 1999 and 2005, nor was it necessary to assess the reliability of the applicant's evidence given the accommodation measures already in place.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged age discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the school board and individual administrators after she was denied a promotion to Vice-Principal.

Following the presentation of the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal assessed whether a prima facie case had been established.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of age-based harassment, reprisal, and general failure to promote, finding insufficient evidence to link the alleged conduct to the applicant's age or to retaliatory intent.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of age discrimination regarding the specific denial of a promotion to Vice-Principal at her own school, requiring the respondents to present evidence on that issue.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural and accommodation issues for a hearing involving an applicant with complex communication and medical needs.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases on consent.

To accommodate the applicant's disabilities, the Tribunal permitted him to testify using a communication assistant of his choosing, reserving the determination of the evidence's reliability and weight.

Furthermore, the Tribunal directed that the applicant's testimony be elicited through questions posed by the adjudicator, including cross-examination questions submitted in advance by the respondent, to minimize the risk of stress-induced seizures.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the intervenor supported deferral, and the respondents supported deferral if the matter was not dismissed.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a 51-year-old Russian-trained mathematics teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, ethnic origin, and place of origin after failing to obtain an interview or placement on the occasional teaching list with the Toronto District School Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the application was dismissed because the respondents provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation: the school board preferred candidates certified to teach in two subject areas, whereas the applicant was only certified to teach mathematics.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged that the school board's system for assigning work discriminated against him on the basis of age by favouring retired teachers.

The respondent and intervenor requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had already dealt with the substance of the application in a prior duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the issues, concluding that the assignment system did not discriminate on a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 9-year-old Black student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin by the respondent school board and three teachers.

The allegations included racial name-calling by other students, derogatory comments by teachers, and a racially motivated report to the Children's Aid Society regarding sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the school took appropriate steps to address the reported incidents of racial name-calling and bullying.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination regarding the teachers' comments or the report to the CAS, which was deemed a reasonable response to the information received.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a transition application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging racial discrimination, name-calling, and bullying at school.

At the case resolution conference, the respondents objected that the specific allegations raised by the applicant's litigation guardian were beyond the scope of the original complaint filed with the Commission and were out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection for all but one allegation, finding that the allegations of name-calling and bullying were particulars of the general allegations in the original complaint and fell within the one-year time limit.

The applicant, an adult student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability after being demitted from school following a verbal altercation with staff.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claimed learning disability was not connected to the behaviour that led to her being demitted, and the school board had been willing to discuss accommodation prior to the altercation.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents brought preliminary requests to remove three individual respondents from the human rights application and to bar a report made to the Children's Aid Society from being considered.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding it premature to remove the individual respondents whose conduct was central to the allegations, and holding that it could not assume the report to the Children's Aid Society was made with reasonable grounds or without malice before hearing evidence.

The applicant requested to expedite the hearing of her human rights application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions from the applicant, the respondents, and the Elementary Teachers of Toronto.

Relying on previous jurisprudence, the Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not so particularly urgent as to distinguish them from other cases before the Tribunal.

The parent appealed an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal to a Special Education Appeal Board.

The Tribunal found that the parent had properly requested an appeal, but the school board failed to follow the statutory timelines under Regulation 181/98 to convene the appeal board.

Consequently, the parent was denied the opportunity to be heard at the lower level, and the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits.

The applicant, a bargaining unit president, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance concerned a disciplinary letter placed on his file by the employer for unauthorized use of photocopying facilities.

The union had negotiated a settlement that replaced the original letter with a less severe version and subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was reasonable given the minor nature of the discipline, the applicant's prior history, and the union's success in mitigating the letter's contents.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.