David Spears

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order that the applicant disclose all arguably relevant documents in his possession, as required under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose any documents in his possession that are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including documents relating to his efforts to mitigate his losses by seeking other employment.

The applicant company sought judicial review of an interlocutory procedural order made by an arbitrator in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The order required the company to produce documents found to be arguably relevant and declined to bifurcate the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating its disinclination to intervene in ongoing labour relations processes absent exceptional circumstances.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successfully opposed motion for a stay of hearing.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, complexity, and proportionality.

Given the non-complex nature of the issues and the hearing in writing, the court awarded the respondent $3,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a driver's helper, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability after he reported two workplace back injuries.

He claimed the employer failed to provide modified duties, reduced his hours, and ultimately terminated his employment because of his injuries and WSIB claims.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, finding that the employer reasonably concluded no light duties were available that met the applicant's strict medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's hours were reduced due to a shortage of work and his employment was terminated because he failed to show up for a scheduled Saturday shift.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

She had also filed a claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

The applicant did not respond, while the respondent supported deferral.

Finding the subject matter of both proceedings identical, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the ESA proceedings.

The union sought an order for particulars and disclosure from the employer in relation to a job competition and promotion grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the requested documents, including questionnaire score forms, personnel files, and relevant policies, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by paying eligible employees a $400 lump sum clothing allowance less statutory deductions, rather than a net payment of $400.

The Union argued the language was clear or, alternatively, latently ambiguous, relying on extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.

The arbitrator held that the clear language of the collective agreement required a gross payment of $400, noting that the Employer's statutory obligation to remit tax did not alter its compliance with the provision.

The grievance was dismissed.