Jerry Raso

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being rejected for an acting Department Head position.

He sought to amend his application to include a subsequent rejection for the permanent position.

The respondent consented to the amendment on the condition that a duplicate application be withdrawn and the hearing adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association intervenor status to make arguments and cross-examine witnesses, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's request despite the applicant's opposition.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a grievance addressing the same incidents was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it, noting that the grievance arbitration was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing despite having notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the significant resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and the duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after the respondent school board refused to return him to work.

The applicant repeatedly refused to comply with a Tribunal order to produce medical records relevant to his fitness to return to work.

A related grievance arbitration had previously been dismissed as an abuse of process for the same reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to the applicant's ongoing refusal to produce the ordered documents, and alternatively under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance arbitration.

The respondent Kimberly Rose requested a summary hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the issues raised by the parties could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and that summary hearings are intended for applications where allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour against the respondent school board, a school principal, and a teacher.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, which the Tribunal granted, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as the school board assumed liability for their actions.

The Tribunal also granted the teachers' union leave to intervene, as the remedies sought could affect its members.

The applicant's request for document production was deferred as premature.

The Tribunal set out issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for verbally, physically, and psychologically abusing special education students, and for creating a poisonous work environment for educational assistants.

The Discipline Committee found the teacher guilty of professional misconduct.

Although the College sought a 30-day or two-year suspension, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the teacher's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, finding his conduct egregious and emphasizing the need for specific deterrence, general deterrence, and public protection.

The applicant, a black teacher, alleged that workplace violence complaints filed against him by several co-workers were motivated by racial discrimination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several individual respondents, finding no evidence linking their actions to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the school board and two individuals regarding the initial incident, as the applicant's allegations of disproportionate reaction could potentially support an inference of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

Although the original grievance was settled, the intervenor union had filed another grievance on the applicant's behalf regarding an unpaid suspension.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings continued to overlap significantly and the arbitration was already well advanced.

The request to reactivate the application was denied and the deferral was continued.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The union, OECTA, was granted intervenor status and sought to participate in the merits phase of the hearing to protect its reputation against allegations of collusion, despite taking no position on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to call evidence and cross-examine during the merits phase, finding it would likely cause delay and disruption and that the union's participation would not assist in determining the merits.

The union's participation was limited to the remedy phase.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for depositing a $500 student money order intended for a school trip into his personal account and submitting false documentation to his school board.

The Member pled guilty via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, the completion of a professional ethics course, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The applicant, a teacher married to another teacher employed by the same school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of marital and family status because she was denied family coverage under the employer's benefit plan.

The plan prohibited the internal coordination of benefits, meaning a person could not be insured as both an employee and a dependent.

The Tribunal found that the prohibition did not constitute discrimination on a prohibited ground, as any disadvantage arose from the terms of spousal employment rather than marital or family status.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer the application because a grievance under a collective agreement was ongoing based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that it was most fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated, filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination regarding the respondent's recommendation to revoke her teaching certificate.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance concerning her termination and alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration process, noting the overlapping issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of three related union grievances.

Finding that the grievances addressed similar facts and issues and were still ongoing, the Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its usual practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

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

The applicant's request for particulars was denied, while his request to amend the application to add a claim for monetary compensation was granted.

The union's request to intervene was granted over the applicant's objections, as the union had a requisite interest in the matter.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of concurrent grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The individual respondent, a teacher, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to add the School Board as a respondent and to remove herself as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments.

The School Board consented to being added and acknowledged the teacher was acting in the course of her employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the School Board and removing the individual teacher as a respondent, noting the School Board's capacity to respond to the monetary remedy sought.

The complainant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour by failing to refer him to jobs and showing favouritism towards workers of Portuguese descent.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) in a duty of fair referral complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, as the OLRB had considered whether the union's actions were discriminatory and found no evidence of favouritism based on race or ethnicity.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellants, contractors and their employees, were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace accident during an expansion project at Pearson International Airport.

A justice of the peace quashed the charges, finding the appellants' work was integral to a core federal aeronautics undertaking and thus immune from provincial legislation.

The application judge granted certiorari and mandamus, setting aside the decision and directing a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' normal operations as going concerns were not integral to the federal undertaking, and the application of provincial workplace safety standards did not impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.