Holly Reid

The Association filed a grievance alleging that the Employer and Canada Life imposed an unreasonable precondition on members receiving negotiated health benefits by requiring blanket consent to obtain personal health information.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction over Canada Life's administration of the provision.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, ordering the exchange of will-say statements and documentary production prior to the continuation of the hearing on the preliminary issue.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add allegations of incidents that occurred after the application was filed and while it was deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and should have been filed within one year of the incidents.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that if the applicant had filed the request during the deferral period, the Tribunal likely would not have dealt with it.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the remaining issues should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability (epilepsy) regarding his employer's accommodation process.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations arising prior to November 4, 2010, were an abuse of process because they had been resolved through a union grievance settlement.

Most of the subsequent allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as they amounted to general unfairness without a link to the Code.

However, the Tribunal ordered further submissions regarding the employer's requests for the applicant to return to an independent medical examination, provide a lab report on medications, and the denial of straight day shifts pending cooperation.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel was unable to attend due to recent medical issues.

The applicant's representative did not oppose the request but submitted that medical documentation should be provided.

The Tribunal held that counsel, as an officer of the court, is not required to provide medical documentation.

Finding that the sudden medical issues constituted exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated following her disclosure of pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) who dismissed the applicant's prior claim under the Employment Standards Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Figliola, the Tribunal found that the ESO proceeding dealt with essentially the same legal issues and provided the applicant an opportunity to know and meet the case against her.

The Tribunal declined to review the procedural or substantive correctness of the ESO's decision, noting the applicant's proper recourse was an appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application, stating his union informed him of a proposed settlement but he lacked details.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance proceeding was ongoing because the applicant had not agreed to the proposed settlement, which required him to withdraw his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because the grievance proceeding had not yet concluded.