John W. T. Judson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding a ban from the respondent library's premises.

After her adjournment request was denied, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing or provide requested medical documentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, who has ADHD, panic and anxiety disorders, and an eating disorder, alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent health centre and its staff after he was discharged from a group-based eating disorder program.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's difficulties in the program or his discharge were related to his disabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant within the parameters of their group-based program, and dismissed the application.

The appellant municipality sought to replace its full-time firefighters with volunteers and passed a by-law purporting to terminate the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the arbitrator and Divisional Court, finding that the collective agreement continued in effect beyond its expiry date due to the freeze provision in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Act, 1997.

The court held that the municipality could not unilaterally terminate the agreement, as the Act requires the consent of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on joint application, rendering the by-law of no effect.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a school principal, alleging professional misconduct and incompetence for failing to adequately respond to a student's escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The student's classroom teacher and parents had reported numerous incidents to the school's vice-principal and social worker.

The majority of the Discipline Committee dismissed the charges, finding that the principal met the minimum standard of performance and was not informed of the full extent of the problem until late in the school year, at which point he took immediate action.

A dissenting member would have found the principal guilty of professional misconduct for failing to proactively supervise his inexperienced vice-principal and failing to act in a timely manner.

A pre-hearing conference was held to determine procedural matters and set a schedule for the appeal of Olszowka Poultry Inc. against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding quota violations and levies.

The Tribunal issued a consensus order setting the hearing dates and establishing deadlines for document disclosure, witness lists, and stipulations of evidence.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.

The respondent, a police officer, was forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to a mandatory retirement policy in the collective agreement.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination.

The Board of Inquiry found the policy was not a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) because the employer lacked a sincerely held belief in its necessity at the time of adoption, and because individual accommodation was possible.

The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the subjective element of the BFOR test can be satisfied where a policy is adopted in good faith through collective bargaining without ulterior motives.

The Court also held that the objective element does not require individual accommodation where a general rule is reasonably necessary and individual testing is impractical.

The mandatory retirement policy was justified as a BFOR.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer frustrated the grievance and arbitration process.

Following a settlement and an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a discharged truck driver, the employer laid off the driver, citing insurance restrictions.

The Board found that the employer reported the driver's past accidents to its insurer specifically to generate insurance restrictions and insulate itself from the grievance process.

The Board held that this conduct demonstrated an unacceptable disregard for the grievance and arbitration procedure, violating section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the union's administration of the collective agreement.

The Association of Allied Health Professionals applied for certification to represent paramedical employees of the Perth District Health Unit.

The employer and the intervener (CUPE) argued that a recent agreement between them to include the disputed classifications in CUPE's existing bargaining unit acted as a bar to the application.

The Board found that the agreement, which arose in the context of a section 106(2) application, did not have retroactive effect and could not bar the certification application.

The Board determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, directed that a certificate issue.

The complainant, a police officer, alleged age discrimination after being mandatorily retired at age 60.

The respondents conceded a prima facie violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code but argued the policy was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

Applying the Supreme Court's Etobicoke test, the Board of Inquiry found the respondents failed to establish both the subjective and objective elements of a BFOQ.

Subjectively, there was insufficient evidence that the policy was adopted with a sincerely held belief in its necessity for adequate job performance.

Objectively, while acknowledging age-related declines in aerobic capacity and increased cardiovascular risk, the Board concluded these factors did not render the age 60 limit reasonably necessary, as the essential duties of police work rarely require sustained aerobic limits and reasonable accommodation was possible.

The mandatory retirement policy was held to violate the Code.

The Town of Wallaceburg applied to the Ontario Police Commission under section 14(3) of the Police Act to resolve a budget dispute with the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Town sought an $80,000 reduction in the police budget, proposing cuts to the marine patrol, communications staff, and overall complement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reductions would impair the Board's ability to maintain an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality.