Dave Steele

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the underlying facts were also the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance overlapped significantly with those in the application.

Applying its general approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its counsel discriminated against her on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal by failing to adequately represent her in a grievance proceeding.

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

Finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to general dissatisfaction with the union's representation without any evidence linking the union's conduct to her disability or a reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene after the application against it was dismissed.

The respondent filed a response expressing concern that the union intended to represent the applicant, which the union clarified was not its intent.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent City delayed providing accommodated work in 2009, provided unsuitable work, and required him to participate in a work selection process in 2010 while he was medically unable to work.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the 2009 allegations were out of time and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the 2010 allegations had no reasonable prospect of success because there is no duty to accommodate an employee who is unable to work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment 16 months after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to depression and the time it took to complete the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating that his disability prevented him from pursuing his rights within the timeline, noting he was actively pursuing a grievance during that period.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The union, as the certified bargaining agent, requested to intervene in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer.

The union argued that potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights, policies, and training.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

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 the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the union took no position but acknowledged the overlap in issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, seeking reinstatement and workplace accommodation training.

The applicant's certified bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1072, filed a Request to Intervene on the basis that the requested remedies could impact its bargaining unit members.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and his union.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied, but he still failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and dismissed the application against the union as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his former employer, union, a college, and the WSIB.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his disability, specifically chronic depression and an acquired brain injury.

The Tribunal found the application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing that his disability prevented him from pursuing his legal rights during the material time.

The application was dismissed.