Jonathan A. Maier

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance regarding the payment of weekly room and board allowances under a provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that a memorandum of agreement settling a strike had superseded the weekly rate with a daily rate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation, which reconciled the memorandum with the expired collective agreement and applied the principle that clear language is needed to remove a benefit, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff claimed damages for early termination of a fixed-term employment contract under simplified procedures.

The action settled, with costs remaining in dispute.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $24,615.80, while the defendant proposed $5,000 plus disbursements, arguing for restraint in simplified procedure cases and criticizing the plaintiff's conduct and excessive time spent.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), the simplified procedure context, the amount recovered, and the defendant's reasonable expectations, ultimately fixing the plaintiff's total costs at $14,855.99.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions and refused to allow him to return to work.

The respondents sought to defer the applications pending a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to their similar facts and issues, and deferred them pending the resolution of the grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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 filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging infringement of her rights.

Despite receiving proper notice of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former Subscriber Advisor, alleged that her employer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of disability and age, culminating in the termination of her employment.

She claimed that the employer's performance management was a pretext for discrimination due to her health issues and that the employer failed to accommodate her ergonomic needs and need for additional washroom breaks.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the performance management or termination to a prohibited ground, concluding that the employer engaged in normal progressive discipline for poor performance.

The Tribunal also found that the employer reasonably accommodated the applicant's ergonomic requests and washroom needs.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a lube technician with kidney stones, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and reprisal after he was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant leaving work early without management approval, excessive absenteeism, and poor workmanship, culminating in insubordination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded the discipline and termination were not related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal held the respondent did not fail in its duty to accommodate, as the applicant was disciplined for failing to follow the proper departure protocol, not for his medical condition.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after the respondent declined to rehire him.

The applicant claimed he was not hired because of a previous 'washroom problem' related to his age and need for frequent breaks.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to establish a disability within the meaning of the Code, failed to show the respondent was aware of any such disability, and could not link the failure to hire to a prohibited ground.

During the course of a hearing, the applicant fell ill and the hearing was adjourned.

Prior to the resumption of the hearing for final submissions, the applicant requested to re-open her case to subpoena her family doctor to testify regarding doctors' notes that the respondent had previously objected to.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample opportunity to call her doctor during her case-in-chief and that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to allow her to re-open her case at this late stage.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing two weeks prior to the hearing dates, stating that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre had recently informed her it would not provide representation and she needed time to seek counsel through Legal Aid.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant had ample time since the hearing dates were set in February 2012 to retain counsel, and that her circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant moved to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union two years after his dismissal, which the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed for delay.

The applicant then delayed in serving his application for judicial review and adding the Board as a party.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to comply, he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the justice of the case did not require an extension as the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The motion was dismissed.