Dolores Barbini

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a non-contracting out provision for a newly created Customer Service Agent position.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because both parties had agreed in written submissions that the issue of contracting out would be left for a future arbitrator, yet the arbitrator decided the issue anyway.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the relevant portions of the award were set aside and remitted to the arbitrator.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that adjourned an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature.

The court held that the OLRB's decision was an interlocutory adjournment and did not constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interim administrative decision.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, providing a medical note indicating upcoming surgeries and a consultation with a pain specialist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application due to the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the medical information raised a serious issue regarding the applicant's ability to proceed, but declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide updated medical information by a specified date indicating his availability for a hearing.

The respondent Hospital brought preliminary requests to dismiss the Application against it, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and schedule a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding her accommodation and the transfer of her seniority between bargaining units.

The Tribunal denied the Hospital's requests, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the recognition of seniority and the complex issue of accommodation required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also noted that historical events were included only for context, making a dismissal for delay unnecessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance arising from the same factual circumstances and seeking human rights damages.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding the duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a student who was suspended for fighting and bullying, brought an application alleging racial discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary matters.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to produce redacted disciplinary records for students at the applicant's high school who were disciplined for fighting or bullying during the relevant school year.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant's expert to testify regarding the disproportionate application of discipline to racialized students.

The Tribunal removed the individual school administrators as personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue against them since the school board accepted vicarious liability.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that new allegations regarding the failure to provide homework were beyond the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application over two years after the underlying events.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis of delay and section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 53(8) did not bar the application because a prior complaint had never been formally 'filed' with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting a lack of due diligence in pursuing the claim despite communications from the Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status after receiving a trespass notice preventing him from entering his son's school premises.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings.

Noting that both parties expressed willingness to mediate, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation date and deferred the request to expedite until after mediation, if necessary.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for its decision not to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was discharged for allegedly smoking marijuana on duty, which he denied.

Following an initial consultation, the Board determined it could not finally dispose of the matter based solely on the information provided.

The Board directed that the consultation continue, requiring the union to call evidence subject to cross-examination to establish the basis for its decision not to arbitrate the grievance.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the Law Society to post and distribute a notice to affected employees by a certain date.

The Law Society failed to post the notice in a timely manner and failed to send it to former employees.

The Tribunal found the notice ineffectual and ordered the Law Society to post, distribute, and mail a new notice by October 15, 1996.

The applicant employer, a cleaning company providing services to a community college, applied for a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act to use specified replacement workers during an anticipated strike.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to prevent danger to life, health, and safety under section 73.2(3) by maintaining minimum cleaning standards at the college.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the college operated at full capacity, the employer had sufficient managerial personnel available to perform the minimum cleaning necessary to prevent such danger without the need for specified replacement workers.