Darragh Meagher

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application and indicated she would not attend.

The Tribunal converted the hearing to a teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend or provide a valid reason for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate in the proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review of an OLRB decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint.

The applicant filed an application record containing numerous documents that were not before the OLRB.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike the application record.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the general rule that judicial review is based on the record before the original decision-maker, and no exception applied to admit the new documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and discrimination in employment.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed because the substance had been dealt with in an arbitration proceeding.

At the commencement of the teleconference hearing, the applicant stated she would not participate, demanded the adjudicator investigate the arbitration process, and hung up the phone.

After waiting 10 minutes for the applicant to return, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant's employment was terminated and his union took the matter to arbitration.

After an inordinate delay, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but denied compensation for lost wages.

The union, relying on legal advice, declined to seek judicial review of the award.

The applicant sought standing to bring his own application for judicial review, which was denied by a motions judge.

On a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary that decision, the court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the applicant did not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of union exclusivity.

The applicant was terminated from his employment and his union, CUPE Local 79, represented him in an arbitration that resulted in his reinstatement without retroactive compensation.

The arbitrator's reasons were delayed by three years.

The union declined to seek judicial review of the decision.

The applicant sought to pursue judicial review on his own behalf, alleging a breach of natural justice due to the delay.

The respondents brought a motion challenging his standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the applications, holding that the applicant did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the principle of union exclusivity, as there was no evidence of inadequate representation by the union.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She claimed that she was capable of performing her pre-injury duties as a Registered Practical Nurse but was denied the opportunity, and that she was mistakenly called in for shifts in 2014.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the underlying decision not to return the applicant to her pre-injury position was made in 2012 and was therefore out of time.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success regarding the 2014 scheduling errors, as there was no evidence linking the errors to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a grievance arbitration decision.

Following the arbitrator's decision, which is now subject to an application for judicial review, the applicant requested the Tribunal re-activate his application.

The Tribunal ordered that the application remain deferred until the conclusion of the judicial review proceeding and the exhaustion of any rights of appeal, as the judicial review relates to identical facts and allegations.

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for post-retirement benefits under a collective agreement.

The terms of the collective agreement had been determined by a Board of Arbitration following an interest arbitration.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Board of Arbitration had jurisdiction to apply the Code, appropriately dealt with the substance of the dispute, and that the application constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of an arbitration award requiring it to potentially adjust and top-up a grievor's pension upon retirement.

The grievor had been on WSIB and granted a disability waiver of pension contributions.

The arbitrator found that under the Collective Agreement, the City was obligated to treat the grievor as an active employee and make her pension whole.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Collective Agreement was reasonable and justified.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after his long-term disability benefits were terminated when he reached age 65.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the termination of benefits at age 65 is permitted by the exemption in section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for age-based distinctions in group insurance plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and its regulations.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability following a demotion.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing that the withdrawal of a related union grievance 'with prejudice' precluded the application.

The respondents also requested production of a legal opinion provided to the applicant by her union.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding the reasons for the legal opinion irrelevant.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to dismiss the application, concluding that the grievance withdrawal did not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and that proceeding with the broader human rights application was not an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her workplace injury.

The respondents sought to dismiss portions of the application on the basis that they fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on the issue of delay.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, including banning the applicant from work and keeping her off work without pay, had a sufficient nexus to the timely incident of returning her to an unsuitable position.

The Tribunal concluded the allegations constituted a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) of the Code and dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay.

The applicant filed a breach of settlement application alleging the respondent failed to comply with a term designating her as the key point of contact and subject matter expert for a project.

The applicant sought to introduce evidence of statements made by the respondent during mediation to interpret the settlement term.

The Tribunal held that the settlement language was unambiguous and excluded the extrinsic evidence under the parol evidence rule, noting that admitting such evidence would undermine mediation confidentiality.

The Tribunal then assessed the documentary evidence and concluded the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in proving a breach, as the respondent had formally assigned her the agreed-upon role.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal arising from a 2003 sexual assault by a co-worker and the employer's subsequent investigation.

The employer and the individual management respondent requested dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the employer's investigation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a prior grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations regarding the sexual assault and the co-worker's subsequent conduct for delay under s. 34 of the Code, concluding that the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith, as she had been capable of pursuing a WSIB claim, a police report, and an internal complaint during the same period.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed five individual grievances concerning post-age 65 retirement benefits.

The arbitrator had upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the issues had already been decided in a prior policy grievance arbitration and were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to address its new arguments regarding age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's application of res judicata and abuse of process was reasonable, as the union could have raised the human rights arguments during the initial policy grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming she was forced to resign under duress.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the delay issue.

When the applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The parties requested a late adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on consent to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's recent retention of counsel and health concerns constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the late request under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The adjournment was granted, with directions to advise the Tribunal within 30 days if the matter settled or needed to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant via email and regular mail.

The applicant failed to attend the commencement of the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by his supervisor.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in November 2008 resolving two grievances, including one for age discrimination.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with allegations of events prior to the November 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application were struck to the extent they related to events preceding the settlement, while the remainder of the application was allowed to proceed.