Jane Gooding

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging that a previous settlement agreement was signed under duress and should be set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over such applications where there is an allegation that a term of the settlement has been breached.

Because the applicant did not allege a breach, the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss or defer the applicant's human rights application.

The respondent argued that a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the unionized employee's claims, that the claims were already settled through the grievance process, or that the matter should be deferred pending WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that it has concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrators over human rights claims by unionized employees, that the applicant had not voluntarily agreed to the grievance settlements, and that there were no pending WSIB appeals.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employment was terminated because of his disability.

Prior to filing the application, his union had filed a grievance regarding the termination, which was referred to arbitration.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance did not raise human rights issues and that the Tribunal must first determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the grievance and application both related to the termination, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and that the Tribunal has discretion to determine the order in which issues are considered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by not offering suitable work after a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the completion of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

Finding a significant overlap in facts and issues between the two proceedings, and a real risk of inconsistent findings regarding the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIB.

Alternatively, the respondents requested a deferral pending the completion of WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the WSIB decisions did not address the substance of the human rights allegations, such as the failure to accommodate the applicant in her pre-injury position or adverse differential treatment.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the matter, as the ongoing WSIB appeals were not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and family status regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The respondent school board sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding the change of her volunteer placement to a different school raised triable issues regarding the procedural duty to accommodate and family status discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding her placement in a long-term occasional position rather than a permanent position, finding no evidence that her disability required a permanent position.

The application against the respondent union was also dismissed.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that a physiotherapist at the respondent clinic made overtly racist comments to her during a telephone conversation, contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The conversation was uncorroborated by witnesses or recordings.

Applying the test for credibility from Faryna v. Chorny, the Tribunal found the applicant's allegations were improbable and not in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities, given the lack of prior discriminatory conduct and the context of a dispute over assessment fees.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant union appealed an order of the Divisional Court regarding an arbitrator's decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Aston J. at the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court's order was set aside, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the appellant.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application pending the resolution of his outstanding WSIB appeals for loss of earnings benefits.

The respondent consented to the deferral after receiving further information.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the overlap in time and issues between the WSIB claims and the human rights application.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to have a witness testify by affidavit, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the requirement for in-person testimony on contested issues.

The applicant, an aboriginal man with supervised access to his children, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board regarding his access to information about his children and his ability to attend school events.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination or establishing the elements of reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and a personal respondent.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the applicant's request for reinstatement.

Applying established principles, the Tribunal removed the named personal respondent and denied the applicant's request to add another, finding the corporate respondent could adequately respond to and remedy the alleged Code infringements.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The respondents brought requests for orders during the proceeding to amend their Response, remove the individual respondents, and deem the application abandoned after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal declined to deem the application abandoned, noting that mediation is voluntary and the applicant had clarified his intention to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its chief steward engaged in a reprisal against her by failing to support her workplace harassment claims after she filed a separate human rights application against her employer.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, as there was no reasonable basis to infer that the union's alleged inaction was intended to retaliate against her for filing an application against her employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging failure to accommodate a disability requested the production of cleaning schedules, student populations, and square footage for various schools.

The School Board opposed the request as onerous and irrelevant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the extensive records were arguably relevant to the specific issue of whether the accommodation provided to him was reasonable.