4 total
Motions for OCL involvement and mental health assessment dismissed; security for costs ordered against applicant.
The applicant mother brought a motion requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) or a section 112 assessment for the child.
The respondent father brought cross-motions for security for costs and a mental health assessment of the applicant.
The court dismissed the request for OCL involvement, finding it would not be in the child's best interests and would draw her back into the parents' high-conflict dynamic.
The court also dismissed the request for a mental health assessment, finding insufficient evidence of a clinical issue impairing parenting capacity.
The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs in part, ordering the applicant to post $8,700 (representing outstanding costs awards) within 60 days of the determination of her pending spousal support claim.
Union's failure to pursue a grievance regarding disability accommodation does not inherently violate the Human Rights Code.
The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him with respect to employment and union membership because of his disability.
The applicant was denied a Team Leader position due to medical restrictions, and the union declined to pursue a grievance on his behalf.
The Tribunal found that the union did not participate in the formulation of a discriminatory work rule, nor did it impede the employer's reasonable efforts to accommodate, as no such efforts were made.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a union's failure to advocate or pursue a grievance on a human rights issue is not, in itself, a violation of the Code absent evidence that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.
The application was dismissed.
Union's request to dismiss human rights application denied; settlement with employer did not release union.
The respondent union requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.
The union argued the application was moot, settled by a prior agreement between the applicant and his employer, and disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union was not a party to the settlement with the employer and provided no consideration for the release.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations went beyond a simple failure to represent and established a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Tribunal directed the union to file its position on the applicant's requested remedies.
Applicant not precluded from arbitration for refusing to attend an unreasonable psycho-vocational assessment.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.
The insurer terminated benefits and requested the applicant attend a psycho-vocational assessment.
The applicant refused, arguing it was not an examination by a qualified medical practitioner and was not reasonably required.
The arbitrator found that the proposed assessment was predominantly vocational rather than medical, and therefore did not meet the requirements of section 23(2) of the Schedule.
Furthermore, given the extensive medical evidence already available and the lack of change in the applicant's condition, the request was not reasonable.
The applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.
