Christian Vernon

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability and harassment.

The parties subsequently signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a related grievance.

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application as an abuse of process based on the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was intended to resolve all outstanding issues, including the human rights claims, and that the applicant failed to establish duress or lack of capacity to agree to the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights Application following the dismissal of his Duty of Fair Representation complaint at the OLRB.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation but ultimately dismissed the Application, finding that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred upon termination, making the Application late.

The Tribunal further held that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for the union grievance process to conclude did not justify failing to file a timely human rights Application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate her workplace restrictions.

The respondent employer and union requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The adjudicator reconsidered and annulled a previous interim decision that had added and removed respondents to the application.

The adjudicator noted that a different Vice Chair had already addressed the issue of the proper respondents in a prior interim decision, making the matter res judicata.

The sole respondent to the application remains Metro Ontario Inc.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add his supervisor as a personal respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and creed.

The respondents filed a request to remove two other personal respondents, the Vice President of Human Resources and the Store Manager.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors, granting the request to add the supervisor because the employer might not be vicariously liable for harassment under section 46.3 of the Code.

The Tribunal also granted the request to remove the other two personal respondents as there were no specific allegations capable of supporting a personal remedy against them.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability and creed.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (the Vice-President of Human Resources and the store manager), while the applicant requested the addition of his direct supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents and denied the applicant's request to add the supervisor, finding that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the actions of its employees and there was no compelling reason to name the individuals personally.

In this costs endorsement following a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff recovered modest damages well within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction but sought substantial partial indemnity costs in the Superior Court.

The court held it was reasonable to commence the action in the Superior Court because the plaintiff had a bona fide fixed-term contract claim that, if successful, could have yielded damages of approximately $175,000.

The court rejected the defendant's submissions that the plaintiff should receive no costs, or should pay the defendant's costs, based on abandoned bad-faith allegations and the quantum recovered.

Partial indemnity costs of the trial and costs of the earlier security for costs motion were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action alleging he had a guaranteed five‑year fixed‑term employment contract and was dismissed after only eight months.

The employer denied any fixed‑term agreement and argued the employee resigned.

The court found that the parties formed an oral employment contract confirmed by email that did not include a five‑year guarantee, and that later documents referencing such a term were created primarily to assist the employee in obtaining mortgage financing and were unsupported by fresh consideration.

The court accepted the employee’s account that he had been dismissed during a heated confrontation rather than having resigned.

Damages were therefore limited to reasonable notice rather than the balance of a fixed term, and the court awarded two months’ notice damages.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an order for the production of the applicant's complete and unredacted medical records.

The applicant opposed, arguing the records were not relevant to understanding her functional limitations and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documentation arguably relevant because the applicant had placed her medical condition at issue by seeking accommodation and claiming her condition worsened due to the respondent's conduct.

Disclosure was limited to respondent's counsel and their instructing client to address privacy concerns.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The parties jointly requested to consolidate the applications and adjourn the hearing of the first application so both could be heard together.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the overlapping facts, identical parties, and convenience to witnesses justified consolidation and adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to include a claim for lost wages in the amount of $6,767.12.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not raise issues of unfairness to the respondents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's refusal to reconsider its decision certifying the respondent union.

The employer alleged that one of the employees had not signed a union membership card.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, citing the employer's delay and the fact that the Board had already returned the membership cards to the union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that it properly considered multiple factors, including delay, prejudice, and the loss of continuity of the evidence.

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior arbitration award had already dealt with the applicant's accommodation allegations for the fall 2010 semester.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations, as the arbitrator had concluded the applicant did not have a disability requiring accommodation during that period.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant could not rely on allegations from that period to establish a Code violation, leaving the admissibility of such evidence for context to the merits adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

After retaining counsel, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application to add further particulars.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the hearing date had not yet been set and the timing did not raise issues of unfairness to the respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the revocation of its registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached principles of natural justice in its decision-making process regarding two specific properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal explicitly and properly based its revocation decision on other warranty breaches without relying on the evidence concerning the two disputed properties.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to provide more particulars and to name the Hanover Police Service and the Chief of Police as respondents alongside the Hanover Police Services Board.

The Board consented to the addition of particulars but noted it did not represent the Service or the Chief.

The Tribunal granted the request to add particulars but declined to change the name of the respondent in the style of cause, as the Board had already accepted responsibility as the employer and the other entities had not been given notice.

The applicant, a South Asian woman, alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin when her employment as a Branch Manager was terminated during her probationary period.

She pointed to an incident where a customer refused to speak to an 'Indian' manager and alleged subsequent differential treatment by her supervisor.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation that the applicant was terminated for failing to meet performance expectations to be credible and more probable than an inference of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a university professor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

She claimed that her promotion process to full Professor was marred by discriminatory factors, that she experienced a negative salary differential compared to a male colleague, and that the university failed to properly investigate her complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced difficulties in her promotion process, there was no evidence that these difficulties or her salary differential were due to her sex.

The Tribunal also found that the university did not breach its duty to investigate under the Code, as the initial complaints did not specifically allege discrimination on Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.