Ian Werker

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB and long-term disability (LTD) proceedings.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the WSIB decision was still subject to objection and the LTD matter was ongoing before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the related proceedings had not been definitively resolved and denied the request to reactivate the application.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's costs order, arguing that the respondent Lattice Engines Inc. should not have been awarded costs as its interests were identical to the respondent Scott's, and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents had distinct interests warranting separate representation and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was reasonable and not an error in principle.

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

The respondent Frost requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the allegations, spanning from September 2007 to March 2011, constituted a series of incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant alleged a series of similar incidents against the same supervisor, the last of which fell within the 12-month time period prior to filing.

The Tribunal concluded the allegations related to a series of incidents within the meaning of the Code and declined to dismiss the application as untimely.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (WDHP) investigation appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.

The Tribunal also scheduled a conference call to address a separate request to dismiss parts of the application for delay under section 34 of the Code.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent daycare discriminated against her on the basis of her association with a person with a disability (her brother).

The applicant claimed she was denied admission to the daycare because of her brother's behavioural issues and disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not offered a space because her father had erroneously recorded her birth year as 2002 instead of 2003, causing her to be passed over when the daycare prioritized younger children.

The applicant was ultimately removed from the waitlist due to negative interactions between her mother and daycare staff.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal regarding his termination in 2003.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay, as they were filed in April 2007, more than three years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified by ongoing collusion between the employer and the union during subsequent grievance and duty of fair representation proceedings.

The Tribunal found no factual basis for the collusion argument and concluded that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the inordinate delay.

The applications were dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights applications for delay.

He argued he was denied natural justice when the Tribunal proceeded with the initial hearing despite his request for an adjournment due to his representative's sudden illness.

The Tribunal found that the respondents should have been aware the applicant was represented, and the refusal to grant the adjournment prevented the representative from attending.

Concluding there was a denial of natural justice that outweighed the public interest in finality, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, set aside the previous decision, and ordered a new hearing on the preliminary issues.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal against his former employer, several individuals, and his union, nearly four years after his employment was terminated.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the union additionally argued the matter had been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith and that the passage of time would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The applications were dismissed for delay.

The applicants filed two applications to terminate bargaining rights (ICI and non-ICI) held by the responding unions.

In the ICI application, the issue was whether the sole employee at work on the application date was performing work in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the heavy engineering sector.

The Board determined that the construction of a pedestrian tunnel fell within the heavy engineering sector, focusing on the initial construction of the project rather than the specific repair work performed on the application date.

Consequently, no one was at work in the ICI sector on the application date.

In the non-ICI application, the Board found that the other applicant was at work performing bargaining unit work on the application date, and following a ballot count, declared that the responding parties no longer represented the employees in the non-ICI bargaining unit.

The applicant, an employee association representing electricians and apprentices, applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant established its status as a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

In two applications for the termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry, a dispute arose regarding voter eligibility.

The applicants argued that the responding union was estopped from challenging a voter's inclusion on the list based on the sector of the construction industry, as this issue was not raised during the pre-hearing meeting or in post-vote submissions.

The Board held that the union's broad challenge that the voter was not performing bargaining unit work encompassed a sector challenge.

The Board permitted the union to proceed with its challenge based on sector and directed the filing of submissions.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Pending discussions between the parties, the Board adjourned the matter sine die.

The Board directed that if no party requests to proceed within one year, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicants filed a termination application to displace the Teamsters as their bargaining agent.

A representation vote was held, and the majority voted against the Teamsters.

The Teamsters alleged that the applicants did not meet the 40% threshold for the application and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation and coercion by the Labourers union, which supported the applicants.

The Board held that it could not revisit the 40% threshold issue, as it had already been determined without a hearing pursuant to s. 63(8) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion that would vitiate the representation vote.

The termination application was granted.

The applicant sought to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board ruled that the application related only to the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, as there were no employees in other sectors on the application date.

The Board also determined that a prior settlement and decision declaring the employer and another entity to be 'related employers' did not constitute a 'single employer' declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the application could proceed in respect of the bargaining rights relating only to the specific employer in the ICI sector.

Following a representation vote where a majority opposed the union, the Board declared that the union no longer represented the employees.

The applicant, an employee in the Southwestern Ontario bargaining unit, filed an application alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide adequate notice of a ratification vote.

The union had provided individual written notice to employees with known addresses and published advertisements in local newspapers.

The applicant, who received individual notice and voted, argued that newspaper advertisements were inadequate because some employees allegedly did not see them.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union took reasonable steps to inform employees of the vote in a timely manner, especially given the lack of a common workplace.

The Board also noted the applicant's delay in filing and the substantial prejudice that would result from setting aside the vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents, Chinook Chemicals Company and G. Lemaire, violated the Labour Relations Act by depriving a truck driver of employment because of his union support.

Lemaire, an owner-operator who leased his truck to Chinook, took over driving his truck full-time from the complainant's member shortly before a union ratification vote.

The Board found that Chinook did not violate the Act as it merely acquiesced to Lemaire's lawful exercise of his right to drive his own truck.

The Board further held that even if Lemaire's statements to the driver constituted intimidation under section 70, the requested remedy of reinstatement was inappropriate because Lemaire had a lawful right to resume driving his truck.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by issuing written communications to employees during collective bargaining.

The union argued that the employer was attempting to bargain directly with employees and undermine the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were accurate, did not disparage the union, and were permissible exercises of the employer's freedom of expression under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer was merely explaining its bargaining position and not attempting to negotiate directly with the employees.