Dana McDonald

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the financial compensation requested in his human rights application and to add two individuals as personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the remedy because the applicant provided no factual support for the change.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the individual respondents, noting the lack of reasons or particulars provided and citing previous jurisprudence militating against adding personal respondents in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include additional facts and to add his union as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend because the applicant failed to provide sufficient details about the dates of the newly alleged incidents, preventing an assessment of prejudice or timeliness.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding that the applicant failed to identify any events or factual foundation that could support a finding that the union violated his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis as an abuse of process, arguing that the parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement resolving all outstanding employment issues, including human rights matters.

The applicant had refused to sign the subsequent release because she disagreed with its terms.

The Tribunal found that the parties had a joint intention to settle all outstanding issues when they signed the Minutes of Settlement, and the applicant could not void the settlement by refusing to sign the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process for attempting to re-litigate settled matters.

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant, who suffered from coronary artery disease, alleged that he experienced harassment in employment because of his disability during a warehouse consolidation process.

He claimed that various management representatives made inappropriate comments, coerced him regarding long-term disability benefits, and threatened to cut off his sick leave when he failed to provide comprehensive medical consent.

The Tribunal found that while one manager's comment about doctors writing whatever employees want was unfortunate and vexatious, it was an isolated incident that did not amount to a course of conduct required for harassment.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding the employer's actions in requesting medical information and managing the accommodation process were reasonable and not discriminatory.

The applicant, a female journeyman electrician, alleged a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex by her employer.

At the hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the incidents described by the applicant, while occurring in a male-dominated workplace, did not provide an objective basis to infer that she was treated differently or disadvantageously because of her gender.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate his disability and workplace harassment following a workplace reorganization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues were substantively resolved through settlements and an arbitration decision in the prior proceeding, and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as they had not been addressed in the grievance process.