Caroline V. (Nini) Jones

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim for being filed one day beyond the one-year limitation period.

The HRTO had refused to extend the time limit, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, noting the applicant had filed a timely complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and moved with reasonable dispatch to file with the HRTO after the federal commission declined jurisdiction.

The HRTO's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a determination on the merits.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a teacher, alleged that her principal sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the school board reprised against her.

The plaintiff's union had declined to pursue a grievance on her behalf due to the passage of time.

The court applied the Weber test and held that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

The court found no 'remedial gap' that would grant it jurisdiction simply because the union chose not to pursue the grievance.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the workplace.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral and also requested to remove the union as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievances.

The Tribunal also granted the union leave to intervene, recognizing its interest as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The Midland Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to reduce its civilian staff by terminating eight civilian radio operators and outsourcing dispatch and communications services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

The Commission held a public meeting to hear from the Board, the Midland Police Association, affected employees, and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed outsourcing would maintain adequate and effective policing in Midland, noting the modern facilities and successful track record of the Owen Sound communications centre.

As the parties reached a settlement regarding severance for the affected employees, the Commission consented to the application.

The applicant, an Assistant Crown Attorney, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour regarding his arrest and strip search by Toronto Police Service officers, and later amended it to include reprisal allegations against the Toronto Police Association (TPA).

The applicant also commenced civil actions against the respondents based on the same facts.

The respondents brought requests to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or to defer it pending the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the TPA, finding that the civil claim for defamation incorporated a remedial claim for reprisal that was indistinguishable from the human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the TPS respondents under section 34(11) because the civil claim relied on the Charter rather than the Code, but deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding to avoid duplicative litigation.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application as an abuse of process for the applicant's failure to comply with directions.

The applicant, a police constable, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, as well as reprisal, against his employer, his union (the Association), and a third-party ability management service.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the Association had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the Association failed to assist the applicant in the accommodation process, organized a mediation meeting without his consent, and supported the use of the third-party service.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the denial of access to the central sick leave bank and the development of a new sick leave policy to proceed against the Association.

A police officer commenced a civil action alleging that the police association breached its duty of fair representation in relation to disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act.

The association brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement.

The court applied the Weber framework and examined the essential character of the dispute, concluding that the allegations concerned the association’s representation duties within the collective bargaining regime.

Because the dispute required interpretation and application of the collective agreement and related statutory scheme, jurisdiction lay exclusively with a labour arbitrator.

The court therefore held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and perceived disability.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding a 2007 independent medical examination under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding they had been appropriately dealt with in a settled grievance.

The Tribunal also found no prima facie case for the race-related grounds due to a lack of nexus.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the entire application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.

The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.

The application against the GSB was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on multiple grounds, including race, sex, and age, when it terminated her employment and denied her severance pay.

At the hearing on the merits, after the applicant presented her case, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her Code-protected characteristics and the termination of her employment, noting that much of her evidence was illogical or internally inconsistent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance had been filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondents supported deferral but indicated they would challenge the arbitrability of the grievance because the applicant was a probationary employee.

The Tribunal held that deferral was not appropriate in these circumstances, as the respondents intended to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response.

During the arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding matters outlined in a June 8, 2007 letter to the grievor.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the issues raised in the letter and its enclosures are covered by the arbitration proceedings.

Any ongoing or potential Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) processes regarding those issues are superseded by the arbitration process, and the parties may raise them as part of the arbitration.

The Union brought a motion for interim relief requesting that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of several grievances.

The Employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, argued that particulars had not been provided, and objected to the Union relying on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances and the alleged adverse impact.

The Vice-Chair also ruled that the Union could not rely exclusively on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify, as the Employer had a right to cross-examination.

The grievor, a Property Assessor, was off work on long-term disability when the employer divested its Property Assessment Division to a new entity.

The employer and union negotiated an agreement whereby disabled employees had a one-year window to recover and accept a job offer with the new entity.

The grievor did not recover within the one-year window, and when he sought to return to work later, his position no longer existed in the Ontario Public Service.

The union grieved that the one-year limit and the failure to accommodate him constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the appropriate comparator group was employees whose jobs had been eliminated while on disability benefits, and that the one-year window was actually a beneficial grace period rather than discriminatory.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order following a conference call.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the grievor's allegations to the Employer by October 18, 2004.

A mediation-arbitration date was set for November 15, 2004.

The Board noted that if the Union failed to provide the particulars, the Employer could bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.