Frank A. Angeletti

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex after she was allegedly assaulted and threatened by a customer at her workplace.

She claimed the police and her employer failed to take her allegations seriously.

The respondent employer requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal regarding whether a traumatic event actually occurred.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the issues before the WSIB and the Tribunal, and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB appeal process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the London Police Service as a respondent and to abridge the deadline to exchange documents prior to a scheduled Summary Hearing.

As the requests were unopposed by any other party, the Tribunal granted the requests, removing the London Police Service as a respondent and abridging the document exchange deadline to 14 days prior to the hearing.

The applicant, a 19-year-old, alleged that police officers discriminated against him based on his age when they issued him a trespassing ticket for being in a park after curfew.

He claimed that older individuals in the park were ignored and that a police initiative, Project LEARN, targeted college-aged students.

The Tribunal found that the officers were on routine patrol and issued the ticket because the applicant was in the park after the 10:00 p.m. curfew, not because of his age.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that his age was a factor in his treatment and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and age.

The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations and a Request for Orders During Proceedings seeking dismissal on various grounds, including untimeliness and a prior full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to file a Reply, respond to the Request for Orders, or make submissions regarding the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of other related proceedings.

The respondents consented to the reactivation, provided they were given reasonable time to file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and directed the respondents to file their response within 35 days.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss a civil action commenced by a former teacher alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff had been a member of a bargaining unit governed by a collective agreement between the school board and the teachers’ federation.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute or whether the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework from Weber, the court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement.

As the matters should have been addressed through the grievance and arbitration process or before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the appropriate number and description of bargaining units following a hospital restructuring.

The Board denied an adjournment request by the SEIU and denied standing to OPSEU.

The Board determined that there should be one service unit, inclusive of registered practical nurses and stationary engineers, extending to all three of the employer's sites.

The Board also determined that the technical unit should extend to all three sites rather than being limited to one.

In an application for related employer and sale of business declarations, the responding parties raised a preliminary issue regarding the burden of proof to establish the existence of a collective agreement.

The applicants argued that the responding parties bore the burden under sections 1(5) and 69(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that the applicants bear the initial burden of proving the existence of the voluntary recognition agreement that created the bargaining rights upon which they rely.

The Board also made procedural directions regarding document production and scheduled further hearing dates.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer changed the work schedules of fragrance associates as a reprisal for their participation in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order restoring the previous work schedule and an order requiring the employer to post a notice of employee rights.

The Board dismissed the request to restore the work schedule, finding that the harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main complaint succeeded, whereas an interim order would significantly intrude on the employer's management rights and the collective agreement.

However, the Board granted the request for a posting, directing the employer to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the Act to prevent potential labour relations harm without prejudicing the employer.

The applicants applied for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement had been concluded, an issue that was the subject of a separate, ongoing unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants and the intervener employer requested that the Board direct a representation vote and seal the ballot box pending the resolution of the timeliness issue.

The Board declined to order a vote, citing concerns about jurisdiction, employee expectations, and the potential labour relations impact of holding and later nullifying a vote.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination of the related complaint.