Deborah Hudson

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal following his termination from the defendant company.

The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff was contractually required to work full-time in Toronto rather than splitting his time with his residence in San Francisco.

The court found that the written employment agreement was never finalized due to unauthorized changes and 'slip-sheeting' of signature pages.

However, an oral contract existed which did not require the plaintiff to work full-time in Toronto.

The court held that the plaintiff's refusal to work full-time in Toronto did not constitute cause for termination and awarded damages based on the termination provisions of the oral contract.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination pending the resolution of a union grievance and WSIB claims.

The respondent supported deferral, arguing the grievance overlapped with the application.

The applicant and the union opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found no substantial overlap, as the grievance related to the applicant's termination, while the application concerned harassment prior to termination.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered the respondent to file a response.

Following a finding of liability for terminating the applicant's employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his job search was deceitful and lacked credibility, concluding that he largely failed to mitigate his wage loss.

The Tribunal awarded $8,195.08 for four months of lost wages and $12,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, which was reduced by $1,500 to sanction the applicant for presenting false evidence.

The respondents were also ordered to complete human rights training and post Human Rights Code cards in their vehicles.

The applicant, a battery technician, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being terminated by the respondents upon advising them he intended to file a WSIB claim for a workplace injury.

The respondents claimed the applicant abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence more credible, concluding that he was terminated because of his injury and intention to file a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal held that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability in employment and directed that the hearing be resumed to address remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury and terminated her employment while on sick leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to a potential delay in filing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the parties were involved in ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings dealing with the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceedings overlapped significantly with the human rights application and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted statutory holiday pay to employees on inactive status receiving WSIB benefits.

The employer argued the arbitrator failed to address its central argument under s. 24(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which would result in zero holiday pay for these employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as it lacked justification and intelligibility regarding how the entitlement to payment was determined without addressing the statutory formula.

The application was allowed and the issue remitted to a new arbitrator.