Helen Daniel

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and place of origin.

He claimed he was discriminatorily denied a service worker position in 2005 and subsequently placed in an unfair wage structure in 2007.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2005 refusal allegation for delay, finding the six-year delay was not incurred in good faith despite ongoing union negotiations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the unfair wage allegation, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link his rate of pay to his ancestry or place of origin.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment during her one-year contract employment with the corporate respondent.

She claimed the personal respondent, her acting supervisor, engaged in inappropriate conversations about his personal life, touched her shoulder, and made disconcerting leg movements.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was attempting to create a collegial working environment and that his conduct did not amount to a course of vexatious comment or conduct known to be unwelcome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer his grievance to binding arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, thoughtful, and supported by the record, concluding the union acted reasonably and not in bad faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.