Alanna Twohey

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on family status, claiming he was terminated for refusing to work excessive hours that interfered with his childcare obligations.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, which the Tribunal granted as the corporate respondent assumed liability and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant's request to prevent the corporate respondent from introducing evidence due to alleged non-disclosure of documents was denied, though the Tribunal directed the respondent to disclose any outstanding documents related to performance or accommodation.

The applicant was also directed to file his witness list and documents or face dismissal for abandonment.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove three individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for the individuals' actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent's acceptance of vicarious liability was explicitly restricted to actions within the individuals' legitimate functions.

Because this qualified acceptance raised the possibility that the individuals could be found to have acted outside the scope of their employment, removing them could prejudice the applicant.

The request was denied.

The plaintiff, a medical secretary, sued her former employer, a physician, for wrongful dismissal after 12.5 years of service.

The defendant claimed he terminated her for cause due to performance issues and her refusal to accept a significant salary reduction.

The court found insufficient evidence to support termination for cause, noting the defendant's complaints were largely related to an alleged overpayment error by his accountant.

The court awarded the plaintiff a nine-month notice period, amounting to $32,676.79, finding she had adequately mitigated her damages by retraining as a real estate agent.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted a former employee sick leave benefits for a period after his fixed-term employment contract had expired.

The arbitrator found that the employee's entitlement to the benefits had vested while he was still employed, bridging the gap to his long-term disability benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, rational, and justified.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant's union, CUPE, requested intervenor status.

The applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors and noting the applicant's consent, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status, finding it had a sufficient interest in the proceeding as the applicant's exclusive bargaining agent.