Angela E. Rae

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to anonymize his name in the style of cause, citing stigma related to his mental disability and the respondents' alleged lack of transparency.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization request on an interim basis, noting that sensitive medical evidence regarding the applicant's mental disability would likely be required if the matter proceeded to a hearing.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to refrain from filing unauthorized replies to Responses to RFOPs in the future.

The applicant sought a variance of a Review Officer's Order directing it to pay pay equity adjustments to 767 individuals.

The applicant argued that individuals who could not be located, who had settled, or who had not responded should be removed from the Order's schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the Order and had effectively done so.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no compelling purpose to vary or revoke the Order and terminated the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend its Response, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed and reasonable.

The applicant also brought an RFOP seeking production of documents regarding the physical demands of a subway operator position and an order permitting an occupational therapist to enter the respondent's premises to assess those demands.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's request, scheduling a preliminary teleconference to address the scope of the hearing and the order of evidence.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's personal health information in its Occupational Health and Claims Management files to prepare its Response, and an extension of time to file the Response.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the requested orders.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated pursuant to a long-term disability guideline negotiated between the school board and the union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than four years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the termination was the last incident of alleged discrimination and rejected the applicant's argument that the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal also found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's efforts to pursue her rights through the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, who has a learning disability, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) failed to accommodate her disability during the Bus Operator training program, improperly terminated her employment, and subjected her to a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that the TTC made reasonable efforts to accommodate the applicant's learning needs once they were clearly communicated.

Relying on a vocational assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was incapable of performing the essential duties of a Bus Operator even with accommodation.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a poisoned work environment and held that the TTC had no obligation to offer an alternative position to a job applicant who could not perform the job applied for.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a TTC employee diagnosed with narcolepsy, was forced to transfer from the Transportation Division to the Maintenance Division due to his disability.

Under the collective agreement, he lost all his accrued seniority upon transfer.

The TTC agreed to accommodate him by restoring his full seniority, but the Union refused, arguing it would violate the collective agreement and cause undue hardship.

The Board of Inquiry found that the seniority provisions discriminated against disabled workers and that the Union failed to prove undue hardship.

The Union was ordered to grant the complainant full seniority, cease applying the discriminatory provision, and pay $22,000 in damages for mental anguish.

The respondent Union brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to union membership because of handicap.

The complainant and the TTC had previously entered into a settlement agreement regarding a separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement agreement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 brought a motion to add the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as a party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on handicap.

The complainant had previously settled his separate complaint against the TTC.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that adding the TTC would undermine the settlement and that the Union would not be prejudiced by the TTC's absence, as no joint and several remedies were being sought.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss or stay a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The complainant, a transit operator diagnosed with narcolepsy, was transferred to a maintenance position but lost his accumulated seniority due to the collective agreement's lack of system-wide seniority.

The union argued the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, was an abuse of process, and improperly expanded the issues.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint clearly raised the issue of whether the loss of seniority upon disability-related transfer constituted adverse discrimination, establishing a prima facie case.

The Board also held that it had jurisdiction to make orders affecting future practices and other union members.

The applicant trade unions alleged that there was a sale of a business from Bondfield Construction Company to Aquicon Construction Co. Ltd., or alternatively, that they were related employers.

Two of the three brothers who owned and directed Bondfield left the company, redeeming their shares for over $400,000, and started Aquicon, a non-union contractor in the same school construction market.

The Board found that the disposition of part of Bondfield's business, including the start-up capital and the expertise of the departing directors, constituted a sale of a business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Aquicon was declared bound to the applicants' ICI collective agreements.