James D. Henderson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegation of a discriminatory wage rate was untimely and did not constitute a series of incidents with the termination allegation.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his termination was linked to a prohibited ground or was a reprisal for previously raising a human rights issue.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint, arguing that a five-year delay between the alleged discrimination and the appointment of the Board of Inquiry constituted an abuse of process and impaired their ability to mount a full defence.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motion, finding that the respondents failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or that a proper defence had become impossible, as key witnesses were still available.

The Board directed that the hearing proceed, noting that the issue of delay could be raised again if actual prejudice became evident during the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.