Bradley Troup

The plaintiff, a senior area supervisor with nearly 30 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached company policies regarding conflicts of interest, markdowns, and ethical conduct, including failing to disclose a relationship with a cleaning contractor and improperly discounting furniture for himself and friends.

The court found the plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, including fraud and breach of trust, which went to the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley proportionality test, the court concluded the employer had just cause for summary dismissal and dismissed the action.

The appellant appealed five review decisions made by the Fire Marshal regarding fire inspection orders for residential buildings housing seasonal offshore workers.

The central issue was whether the buildings should be classified as 'dwelling units' or 'boarding, lodging and rooming houses' under the Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the living arrangements, which were contingent on employment and controlled by the employer, met the criteria for boarding, lodging and rooming houses.

The Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders with amended compliance dates, finding the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding goods, services, and facilities after being subjected to security screening, including lifting his pant leg, at a courthouse.

The applicant claimed the search was conducted because of his dishevelled appearance resulting from his invisible disabilities.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting the security measures to his disability.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent employee had adequately mitigated his damages following wrongful termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was well supported by the evidence.

The respondent, who was in his fifties with limited education and had worked for the appellant for 19 years, faced diminished re-employment prospects, exacerbated by the lack of a reference letter and accusations of wrongdoing.

The Court held that the respondent made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment and was not obliged to accept non-comparable positions.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act regarding a workplace injury sustained by the applicant.

The applicant confirmed that he had only filed Intent to Object forms to preserve timelines and had not initiated any appeals that would overlap with the issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that deferral was not appropriate because no overlapping WSIB proceeding had been initiated and denied the respondent's request.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement when the respondent's principal sent her a Facebook friend request the day after the settlement was signed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the agreed-upon terms, and the Minutes of Settlement did not contain any provision prohibiting future contact between the parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on his gender identity (male), claiming he was mistreated by coffee shop staff and issued a trespass notice.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant alleged unfair treatment, he could not point to any evidence connecting the respondent's conduct to his gender identity.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

At the hearing, the parties engaged in mediation/adjudication and reached a settlement with the organizational respondent.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, dismissed the application against the individual respondents, and noted a closing letter would be issued regarding the organizational respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to his ongoing medical difficulties and absences resulting from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting his WSIB claim had already been denied.

The respondent argued for deferral until the WSIB appeal period expired.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding it unfair to do so when the WSIB claim was decided and there was no evidence of an appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent police service and its officers discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age by failing to adequately investigate his complaints.

The applicant believed he was under surveillance by national security agencies and that his home was being tampered with.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to connect the respondents' conduct to any prohibited grounds under the Code.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and need for accommodation (seated breaks).

The respondents maintained she was terminated for cause due to chronic tardiness and a serious breach of store policy (leaving a sales associate alone in the store), following a prior final written warning for falsifying time records.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the termination was related to her pregnancy or accommodation request, which had been promptly granted.

The application was dismissed.