Joseph N. Tascona

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (alcoholism), filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of 26 categories of documents from the respondent.

The respondent argued that many of the requested documents had already been produced and objected to the timeliness of the request.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' threshold and reviewed each request.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce several categories of documents that were arguably relevant and had not been previously produced, including the LHIN's Service Accountability Agreement, On-Call Supervisor Logs, certain performance reviews, and documents relating to lost wages and benefits.

The Tribunal denied other requests where the documents had already been produced, did not exist, or where the request was improper.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (the applicant's supervisor and the Executive Director) from a human rights application alleging disability discrimination.

The corporate respondent confirmed it accepted that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment, accepted liability for any Code violations, and had the ability to remedy any violations.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling juridical reason to keep the personal respondents as parties and granted the request to remove them.

The applicant's employment was terminated in violation of the Human Rights Code.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, partial business losses incurred during mitigation, and non-pecuniary damages.

The Tribunal found the applicant reasonably mitigated her losses by participating in a Self Employment Benefit Grant program and starting businesses.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally liable to pay $15,838 for lost wages, $4,058 for business losses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status, as well as reprisal, after her employment at a family-owned golf course was terminated.

The Tribunal found that the respondents were aware of the applicant's diabetes and her inability to work long hours, and that this disability was a factor in her dismissal.

The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to accommodate her disability, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

The claims regarding family status and reprisal were dismissed.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedies to be determined at a later date.

The respondent worked as a commissioned salesperson for the appellant under an agreement that allowed either party to terminate without notice or penalty.

The trial judge found this provision unconscionable due to unequal bargaining power and awarded reasonable notice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the trial judgment, finding no evidence of unconscionability, duress, or vulnerability.

The respondent understood the contract, which contained terms beneficial to him, and the termination provision was enforced.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding brought a motion for the production of documents relating to his termination, including the corporate respondent's financial statements and Parts Department sales figures.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for productions, which was consented to.

The adjudicator ordered the production of the Parts Department sales figures for the three years prior to and the year of the complainant's termination to assist in establishing his work performance, but declined to order the production of the broader financial statements.

The complainant brought a motion for the production of documents relating to his termination, including the corporate respondent's financial statements and Parts Department sales figures.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for productions, which was consented to.

The adjudicator ordered the respondents to produce the year-end Parts Department sales figures for the three years prior to the complainant's termination and the year of termination, as they were relevant to establishing the complainant's work performance.

The request for financial statements was denied as unnecessary given the production of the sales figures.

The applicant, a school custodian, was discharged following a criminal conviction for theft.

She requested that her staff association advance her discharge grievance to arbitration, with her legal costs covered by Legal Aid.

The association refused, claiming it was not a trade union and had no obligation to proceed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the association, having negotiated collective agreements and collected dues for over 20 years, met the statutory definition of a trade union.

The Board further held that the association breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to turn its mind to the merits of the grievance.

The association was directed to consider the merits of the case and issue a reasoned decision on whether to advance it to arbitration.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining in bad faith.

The parties had previously signed a voluntary recognition agreement defining the bargaining unit.

During negotiations for a collective agreement, the employer insisted on a significantly different scope and recognition clause and bargained the issue to impasse.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that while parties may discuss altering a bargaining unit, pressing the issue to impasse violates the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board directed the employer to withdraw its proposed clause and confirm the agreed-upon bargaining unit description.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time drivers, while the respondent employer argued for an all-employee unit including both full-time and part-time drivers to prevent fragmentation.

The Board applied its normal practice of excluding part-time employees at the request of either party, finding no serious labour relations problems that would render the applicant's proposed unit inappropriate.

The Board certified the applicant for the full-time unit.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single unit since the only difference between the groups was hours worked.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as the assembly of retail store displays was not construction work.

The Board found it unnecessary to decide whether the work was construction work.

Applying the 'majority of time' test, the Board determined that the two employees in question did not spend a majority of their time on the date of application performing the assembly and installation work.

As there were no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, the application was dismissed.