Donna M. D’Andrea

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Ontario Power Generation, specifically at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that employment matters concerning nuclear facilities are federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court of Canada and previous Tribunal jurisprudence establishing that nuclear power sector employees fall under federal jurisdiction for human rights matters.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to prospectively extend the one-year limitation period, amend her application to add new reprisal allegations, and obtain an interim remedy to establish ground rules for the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal held that it cannot prospectively extend the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as good faith delay must be assessed on actual facts.

The request to amend was deferred because the main application was already deferred pending another matter.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to show that the balance of harm favoured the remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.

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

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

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests to add the Board of Directors and the CFO as individual respondents, finding no specific allegations of Code violations against them.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests for early production of documents as premature or outside its jurisdiction.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the corporate respondent's request to remove the named individual respondents from the application, as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The applicant union filed applications for certification and related employer declarations concerning two responding parties.

Following a representation vote, the ballots were segregated and sealed.

The parties subsequently agreed to count the ballots, which revealed majority support for the union among employees of Two Plus Seven Inc., but not Balmer Studios.

The Board granted an interim certificate for the employees of Two Plus Seven Inc., pending the continuation of the hearing on the related employer application.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, a dispute arose regarding the identity of the employer.

During the hearing, testimony from the responding party's witness contradicted its earlier written submissions regarding its relationship with the construction contractor.

Consequently, the applicant indicated its intention to file a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board adjourned the hearing and referred the matter to the Registrar to be listed together with the forthcoming section 1(4) application.

The applicants filed applications against the responding party.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed with the Board, the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.

Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.

The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.

Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.

Written reasons were to follow.