Amandi Esonwanne

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (the "Union") brought a motion to find the City of Toronto (the "City") in contempt of an arbitrator's award, which had been filed as a court order.

The award ordered the City to reinstate a grievor with compensation.

The City reinstated the grievor but reserved the right to seek repayment of wages and benefits if its ongoing judicial review application of the award was successful.

The Union argued this reservation constituted a conditional reinstatement and contempt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the City's reservation of a future legal right, without imposing it as a condition of reinstatement, did not amount to deliberate and willful disobedience of the clear and unequivocal terms of the award.

The applicant, a unionized employee, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that settled his human rights grievance for $31,000, an amount he argued was inadequate.

The respondent union, supported by the employer, brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to an allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant lacked standing to seek judicial review of the arbitration award, as he did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting individual employee standing.

The Union and the City both brought applications for judicial review of an arbitrator's awards concerning the discharge of an employee.

The Union challenged the arbitrator's finding that the employee breached the collective agreement by failing to provide medical certificates, arguing the relevant provision only applied to employees eligible for the illness or injury plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Union's application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable.

The City challenged the arbitrator's remedy awards, arguing it was denied natural justice when the arbitrator excluded evidence of the employee's pre-2012 absenteeism based on a prior settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the City's application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement was unreasonable and prevented the City from fully presenting its case on the viability of the employment relationship.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing.

The respondents requested the mid-hearing dismissal of several of the applicant's allegations of improper investigation and reprisal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to the Professional Standards Unit's investigation because assessing them would require admitting evidence protected by statutory privilege and confidentiality under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding the handling of the applicant's WSIB file and a denied promotion that occurred before she filed her human rights complaint.

Other allegations were permitted to proceed as they required a full evidentiary record.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed and disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of harassment and her subsequent attempts to obtain accommodation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate was ongoing within one year of the application being filed, the Tribunal determined the application was timely and allowed it to proceed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several preliminary issues raised by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to add further reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests to exclude the respondents' instructing client and another officer from the hearing room, subject to conditions.

The respondents' request to dismiss certain allegations and their objection to the applicant's expert witness were denied, while they were granted an extension to call their own expert witness.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment and reprisal sought production of documents from a related police disciplinary hearing.

The respondents argued the documents were inadmissible under the statutory privilege in s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal held that a human rights proceeding is a 'civil proceeding' within the meaning of s. 83(8), departing from previous Tribunal decisions.

Consequently, the requested disciplinary documents were subject to an absolute statutory bar and were inadmissible, with the exception of the initial complaint made by the Chief of Police.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment decision finding that the respondent, a 25-year employee, was constructively dismissed and entitled to a 26-month notice period.

The appellant solely challenged the motion judge's findings regarding the respondent's efforts to mitigate her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions that the respondent's treatment was humiliating, that her decision not to apply for a job 50 km away was reasonable, and that her attendance at her brother's murder trial did not impermissibly hinder her job search.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation file regarding the applicant's complaint.

The SIU opposed production of the Director's Report, an FOI request, and witness statements.

The Tribunal ordered the SIU to produce the witness statements, finding them arguably relevant to credibility and outweighing confidentiality concerns.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the Director's Report and FOI request, finding them not arguably relevant to the human rights proceeding.

In an interim decision following a case management meeting, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to produce certain emails and texts concerning the applicant up to the date of the Application.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents created after the Application date, noting the applicant must first seek permission to amend her Application to add allegations of continuing reprisals.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act precludes the production of documents from a related disciplinary proceeding.

In an interim decision regarding Requests for Orders During Proceedings, the Tribunal addressed motions for document production and dismissal of allegations.

The respondents' request to dismiss older allegations as untimely was denied, as the Tribunal found the allegations formed a series of incidents thematically connected to sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce internal investigation materials, the applicant's professional standards file, and particulars regarding a photograph, finding them arguably relevant.

The respondents' requests for the applicant to produce SIU materials and text messages were denied, though the respondents were permitted to audio-record the hearing at their own expense.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being screened out of two job competitions at the City of Toronto.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal removed two individual respondents as parties, finding their presence unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The respondents' request for a summary hearing was refused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the redacted applications and CVs of candidates who were screened into the competitions, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that he was equally or better qualified.

The applicants sought judicial review of two interim decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a workplace discrimination complaint.

The Tribunal had denied the applicants' request to dismiss the complaint for being outside the limitation period, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's decisions were interlocutory and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer reorganized its transportation department and reassigned her from an operational engineering role to a largely administrative position while maintaining the same salary and title.

The court applied the constructive dismissal framework from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission and assessed whether a reasonable person would view the changes as substantially altering essential terms of employment.

It found that the reassignment fundamentally changed the nature and quality of the plaintiff’s duties from technical operational work to administrative functions, effectively eliminating the role she had performed for decades.

The court concluded that the employer’s unilateral change amounted to constructive dismissal.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 26 months’ reasonable notice and rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that rejected his claim that s. 43(1)(c) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 violated s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The impugned section limits loss of earnings benefits to two years for workers injured at age 63 or older.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the provision did not discriminate on the basis of age as it did not create a disadvantage based on prejudice or stereotyping.

The court further held that even if the provision violated s. 15(1), it would be saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request to dismiss the application on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal held that a decision not to dismiss an application for timeliness is not a final decision, as it does not finally dispose of a claim or issue, determine the real matter in dispute, or dispose of a substantial issue between the parties.

Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a woman of African descent employed by the City of Toronto, filed a human rights application alleging systemic racial and gender discrimination spanning from 2001 to 2010.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for lack of timeliness and no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents, the last of which occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also held that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a culture of systemic discrimination in the workplace.

The matter was directed to mediation or a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Despite the applicant's opposition and complaints about her union's representation and the length of the grievance process, the Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, association, and reprisal.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and for being untimely.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations were untimely and lacked a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the alleged events to a protected ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed specific allegations regarding a workplace discussion about immigrants, the extension of a contract, and a disciplinary letter to proceed, as they could not be dismissed at the summary stage.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that denied a grievance claiming a retired employee was entitled to three additional weeks of vacation pay.

The grievance turned on the interpretation of a Clarity Note in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Clarity Note and the collective agreement was reasonable and met the Dunsmuir requirements of transparency, intelligibility, and justification.