2 total
Grievances alleging harassment and inflexible scheduling dismissed on preliminary objections of res judicata, timeliness, and no prima facie case.
The Union filed three grievances alleging harassment and unreasonable denial of requests for a flexible schedule.
The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations were res judicata, untimely, and failed to establish a prima facie case.
The Arbitrator found that the majority of the allegations were barred by res judicata as they overlapped substantially with ten grievances previously dismissed in an April 2022 decision.
The harassment grievance was also found to be untimely, having been filed well outside the 30-day timeframe without grounds for extension.
The remaining allegations regarding in-office lieu days and isolated workplace incidents were dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.
All three grievances were dismissed.
Judicial review of HRTO decision dismissed; finding that discrimination application was out of time was reasonable.
The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.
The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.
