David Deluzio

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for seeking accommodation and raising health concerns, and that he was harassed and not accommodated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) and the WSIB.

The Tribunal found that the ESO's decision, which concluded the applicant was guilty of wilful misconduct and neglect of duty, appropriately dealt with the termination and reprisal allegations.

Those aspects of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal found the accommodation issues prior to termination were not fully addressed and ordered a summary hearing to determine if they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging creed-based discrimination in employment.

The application was deferred pending a union grievance, which was subsequently settled.

The applicant sought to reactivate the application.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and the applicant was bound by its resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in the workplace.

A concurrent grievance was also filed regarding the employer's handling of the complaint.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting the overlap in issues and the established practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against her employer, her union, and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the named personal respondents.

The applicant consented to the removal of the employer's personal respondents but opposed the removal of the union representatives, though she provided no written submissions.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the union representatives as personal respondents, as the core allegations concerned their failure to properly address her workplace issues on behalf of the union.

The Tribunal ordered all personal respondents removed from the proceeding.

The applicant, a former registered practical nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her benefits for interstitial lung disease.

She claimed the illness was caused by workplace exposure to viruses.

The Tribunal, relying on an independent medical assessor, found it probable that the disease was idiopathic and only speculative that it was caused by workplace viruses.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's reliance on the medical assessor was reasonable and did not constitute an abdication of its decision-making power.

In an addendum regarding costs, the court considered the written submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and fair, the court fixed costs at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan, and in altering the application of Rule 49.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides broad discretion to manage individual issues.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The class action involved former employees terminated after mass store closures.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides adequate mechanisms to handle individual issues.

The plaintiff appealed a Divisional Court decision setting aside a motion judge's order that appointed judges and judicial officers as referees to determine individual class members' claims under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a court cannot appoint a judge or judicial officer to conduct a reference under s. 25(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act without first obtaining the authorization of the Chief Justice or her designate under s. 14(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The consent of individual judicial officers is not an adequate substitute for the Chief Justice's overarching responsibility for judicial assignments.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The union brought a motion to dismiss an application for termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The union argued that on the date of the application, there were no individuals employed by the employer working in the construction industry.

The Board found that the employees, who were preparing their trucks at the employer's yard after a seasonal layoff, were not engaged in the construction industry on the application date because there was no nexus to a construction site.

As there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date, the Board granted the union's motion and dismissed the termination application.

The union requested a hearing regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

A conference call was held, during which it was revealed that the grievor had pending unfair labour practice proceedings against the union at the OLRB.

The union and employer subsequently agreed that there was no dispute between them regarding the meaning of the settlement provision in question.

As there was no outstanding request for relief, the Vice-Chair cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The complainant was discharged by her employer for alleged misappropriation of company property after automobile parts were found in her car.

The union filed a grievance but withdrew it at the third step without ever asking the complainant to explain her possession of the items found inside the passenger compartment, which had become the employer's primary focus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily in violation of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to investigate the complainant's side of the story regarding those items.

The Board ordered the grievance reinstated and submitted to arbitration, with the union to bear the cost of independent counsel for the complainant and any compensation referable to the period of delay caused by its breach.

The complainant filed a section 89 complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without notifying him.

The complaint was filed over three years after the grievance was withdrawn.

The complainant attributed the delay to incorrect advice from his legal counsel, who told him to await the outcome of his criminal proceedings and a similar arbitration involving another employee.

The Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the extreme delay was unjustified and that the respondents, who were not responsible for the delay, would suffer significant prejudice if the matter proceeded.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer harassed him and the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation regarding events that occurred between 1974 and 1978.

The complaint was filed in 1982, with a notice of intention to rely on the earlier events served less than 24 hours before the hearing in 1983.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, exercising its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, due to the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the resulting prejudice to the respondents, including the destruction of records and the death of a key witness.