David I. Wakely

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was essentially identical to a previous application that had been dismissed as untimely.

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

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal found that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding and that attempting to relitigate the matter was an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, sexual orientation, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The allegations related to events that occurred over an 11-year period, all of which were beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to pursuing other legal avenues, which the Tribunal found did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a 49-year-old municipal employee with 26 years of service, alleged age discrimination when a younger candidate was selected over him for an Arena Manager position.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation that the successful candidate was more qualified due to recent management courses and better interview performance.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's emphasis on educational qualifications was not a pretext for age discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a black man of Caribbean origin, alleged that his termination from employment during a company downsizing was discriminatory based on his race, colour, and place of origin.

He argued that as the most senior member of his team, he should not have been the first to be terminated.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision was based on legitimate work-related factors, including the applicant's past refusal to perform assigned tasks, and that there was no evidence to infer discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer to the predecessor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor's business had been placed in receivership, and the respondent subsequently leased the premises, purchased equipment, hired former employees, and temporarily manufactured the predecessor's product line under the predecessor's trade name before transitioning to safety footwear.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred within the meaning of section 55.

The Board declined to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 55(5), finding that the change from casual to safety footwear did not constitute a substantial change in the character of the business.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed.