John-Paul Alexandrowicz

The applicant airline sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the Canada Labour Code finding that the respondent pilot's dismissal for insubordination was unjust.

The pilot had been removed from duty due to concerns regarding his behaviour and attitude based on safety reports from colleagues, and was subsequently dismissed after continually refusing to undergo an Aviation Medical Consultation (AMC) with the airline's designated Civil Aviation Medical Examiner.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and set aside the adjudicator's award, concluding the decision was unreasonable for applying a "serious cause" standard rather than the "reason to believe" unfitness standard required by the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

The Court also found that the adjudicator exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias against the airline and its medical expert.

The matter was remitted to a new adjudicator with a direction to consider the employer's contractual obligation to provide reasons in writing when requiring an AMC.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for production of documents and to amend her application.

The Tribunal denied the production request as premature because the hearing dates and document delivery deadlines had not yet been set.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add new factual allegations, finding it would cause delay and prejudice, but granted the request to amend the remedial relief sought.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend her human rights application to include a subsequent event and to add a personal respondent.

The respondent consented to the addition of the subsequent event but opposed adding the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendment to add the subsequent event on consent.

Applying the three-part test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal denied the request to add the personal respondent, finding it unnecessary because the organizational respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and the individual's conduct was not central to the allegations as a whole.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and age, claiming she was over-supervised, made to feel unwelcome, and unfairly disciplined for classroom management issues.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing for delay, no reasonable prospect of success, and because a grievance proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to a Code ground.

The Tribunal also dismissed older allegations for delay, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations and the applicant lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding a series of disciplinary incidents related to classroom management to proceed.

The Tribunal also found that the grievance process did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application under s. 45.1.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of union grievances.

The applicant wished to pursue the matter at the Tribunal and asked her union to withdraw the grievances, but refused to sign a release required by the union for the withdrawal.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the grievances were still scheduled for arbitration and the request was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to choose her forum, and since she clearly intended to abandon the grievance process, requiring formal withdrawal of the grievances would be an unnecessary technicality.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested an order for the production of various documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce documents related to the applicant's performance and training, as well as statistics on the personal characteristics of other employees trained by a specific individual, finding them arguably relevant to the allegations.

The request for communications with the union was denied as the respondent did not possess them.

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, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an OLRB decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint for undue delay.

The applicant had previously challenged his termination in 2008 without success.

In 2013, he requested severance pay under the collective agreement, which the NHL denied on the basis that he had forfeited it by bringing the 2008 application.

The applicant then filed a new OLRB complaint alleging the denial was an unfair labour practice.

The OLRB dismissed the complaint, finding it crystallized in 2008.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable, as the applicant could not have known with certainty in 2008 that the NHL would deny his severance claim in a manner that potentially contravened the Labour Relations Act.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

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 respondent requested early dismissal of an age discrimination application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved in a group grievance settlement between the respondent and the affected party union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant received no benefit from the settlement and did not expressly adopt it.

The respondent was directed to file its response.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that declared it no longer represented the employees of the respondent employer.

The union argued the Board unreasonably dismissed its allegations of employer interference without a hearing, relying on a continuing taint from a prior Board finding of interference three years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding it was reasonable for the Board to require the union to plead specific, proximate facts of interference rather than relying on the historical taint, especially since the statute does not impose a reverse onus on the employer in these circumstances.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being denied a department head position in favour of a younger candidate.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this stage and directed that the matter proceed to a full two-day hearing.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondent opposed the reactivation because the grievance had been referred to arbitration and a hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that under Rule 14.4, the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The application remains deferred.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal had previously dismissed the respondent's request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent informed the Tribunal that the applicant's union considered the grievance to be resolved.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to defer consideration of the application or to dismiss it under s. 45.1, and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2008 alleging discrimination with respect to services and facilities.

After the initial hearing dates in 2009 were adjourned due to the applicant's medical issues, the matter was dormant until 2014 when the applicant indicated he was ready to proceed.

A mediation-adjudication was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend or provide an explanation for his absence.

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

The appellant, an IT consulting firm, appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant had offered the respondent an independent contractor position at Loblaw, but failed to disclose that the position had not yet received final approval.

The respondent left another contract to accept the offer, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant made a negligent misrepresentation and that the respondent reasonably relied on it to his detriment.

The Court also held that the entire agreement clause in the contract did not preclude liability, applying the Tercon approach to find the clause unconscionable given the informational imbalance and lack of notice.

The appellant recruitment agency appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The agency had offered the respondent an independent contractor position at Loblaw, representing it as a certainty, which caused the respondent to turn down another job offer.

The position at Loblaw was never finalized.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the agency made a negligent misrepresentation and that the entire agreement clause in the contract did not preclude liability, as it was unconscionable under the Tercon approach and the respondent was an unsophisticated party who was not given notice of the clause.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, spouses employed by the respondent school board, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on creed after being denied paid time off for Greek Orthodox Good Friday because they could not provide a letter from their priest confirming attendance.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications, granted the union intervenor status, and removed the individual supervisors and HR manager as personal respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was fully capable of responding to and remedying any Code infringement arising from the enforcement of its policy.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that her previous representative withdrew his services and she had recently retained a new representative, requiring more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining a new representative shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.