John R. Evans

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the civil action did not allege human rights violations or seek Code-related remedies.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the human rights application was filed well before the civil action and the civil action was currently inactive.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice Gray dated March 29, 2011.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, directing the parties to the endorsement in the companion appeal C53566.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside an order striking their statement of defence under Rule 37.14.

The motion judge found that counsel's non-attendance at the initial motion was not due to mistake or accident, but was part of a pattern of delay and stonewalling.

The Court of Appeal upheld this factual finding and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after three days of hearing.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal only on the condition that the applicant undertake not to pursue a civil action related to his employment termination.

The Tribunal declined to impose the requested conditions, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to set parameters over matters before the civil courts, and permitted the application to be withdrawn without terms.

Following a finding of liability that the respondent employer discriminated against the applicant by failing to inquire into his medical condition before summarily dismissing him, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedies.

The Tribunal declined to order reinstatement, noting the employer had already made a non-discriminatory decision to terminate the applicant without cause months prior.

The Tribunal awarded $14,235 for lost wages representing a six-month notice period less mitigation, and $12,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Requests for public interest remedies were dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its key witnesses was on medical leave and unable to work.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the hearing could begin without the witness and that further direction regarding the witness's evidence could be provided at the hearing.

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in employment, the parties filed requests for interim orders regarding document production.

The respondent sought production of documents from third-party real estate brokerages to show the applicant was actively employed while receiving short-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The applicant sought particulars regarding documents over which the respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal held that Rule 16 requires parties to provide sufficient information to allow the opposing party to evaluate the privilege claim, and ordered both parties to exchange specific details about the number, timing, and nature of the privileged documents.

The applicant, a SCADA Protection and Control Supervisor, was terminated for cause shortly after requesting a four-week medical leave for depression and anxiety.

The employer had previously decided to terminate him without cause due to his resistance to sharing critical system passwords, but accelerated the termination to 'for cause' when he failed to attend work and was unreachable.

The Tribunal found that by proceeding with the termination for cause despite being made aware of a potential medical issue, the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The liability portion of the application was allowed in part.

The applicant sought production of documents related to a workplace investigation and surveillance conducted around the time of his termination.

The respondents claimed litigation privilege over the documents, arguing that litigation was reasonably contemplated when the decision to terminate was made.

The Tribunal applied the dominant purpose test and found no evidence that the investigator was retained or the notes were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation or obtaining legal advice.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the documents.

The Board conducted a consultation to determine the arrangements for a representation vote in competing certification applications by UFCW Canada and CAW-Canada for employees at Sobeys.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on December 20, 2001, with a voting constituency of all employees in the Regional Municipality of Durham serving the Sobeys account, subject to certain exclusions.

The ballot will include options for CAW-Canada, District 2A, UFCW Canada, and no union.

The Board directed that part-time and full-time employees vote separately and that disputed employees' ballots be segregated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard preliminary issues regarding multiple applications, including certification, termination of bargaining rights, and unfair labour practice complaints involving the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, District 2A, and 1318359 Ontario Limited.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the matters and directed the parties to provide specific documents and particulars to each other.

The Board also set the order of proceedings and scheduled hearing dates.

Two rival unions, the SEIU and the CAW, filed unfair labour practice complaints against each other arising from an organizing drive and a displacement certification application.

The CAW alleged that the SEIU breached section 87(2) of the Labour Relations Act by circulating defamatory allegations about CAW supporters to the bargaining unit.

The SEIU raised preliminary objections.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Act to dismiss the CAW's complaint without an inquiry, noting that the underlying certification application had already been dismissed, the alleged misconduct had ceased, and litigating the matter would not serve a useful labour relations purpose.

On consent, the SEIU's complaint was also dismissed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent stagehands employed by the responding party at a seasonal outdoor concert venue.

The application was filed in February, during the venue's off-season, when no employees were actually performing bargaining unit work.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board applied the bright line test from the theatrical and construction industries, holding that because employment in this industry is seasonal and transitory, individuals must be actually at work on the application date to be considered employees in the bargaining unit.

Since no employees were working on the application date, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement after the union ratified the employer's final offer.

The employer failed to file a reply, and the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted.

The Board found that the employer reneged on its own proposal regarding a specific job classification after the union had altered its position by ratifying it.

The Board declared a violation of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the employer to sign the collective agreement.