Jayson Rider

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed in part under s. 45.1 of the Code and deferred in part pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the WSIB and OLRB.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate given the direct overlap of issues regarding the duty to accommodate.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of the other proceedings, with the s. 45.1 request to be addressed if the application is reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in his termination from employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a termination compensation package.

The applicant argued he was not in the right frame of mind when he signed the release due to his medications.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Code, the applicant had obtained legal advice before signing, and he provided no medical evidence to substantiate his claim of incapacity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of a perceived mental disability after his employer sent him home and required him to obtain medical clearance from his psychiatrist before returning to work.

The Tribunal found that the employer had a justified basis for concern given the applicant's sudden change in behaviour, which mirrored symptoms from a previous mental health leave.

The Tribunal held that the employer did not violate the Human Rights Code, as it reasonably required medical clarification of the applicant's fitness to work and accommodated him by providing full pay pending the assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment based on disability.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the factual claims in the civil action were indistinguishable from the human rights application and that the remedies sought overlapped.

The application was dismissed as s. 34(11) requires applicants to choose a single forum to avoid duplicative litigation.

The applicant trade union alleged that the responding employer violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer challenged whether the strike was authorized by a secret ballot vote as required by section 74(4).

The Board found that the strike vote was conducted in an open manner where union officials and other employees could observe how ballots were marked.

Consequently, the strike vote did not meet the statutory requirement for a secret ballot, meaning the replacement worker prohibitions in section 73.1 did not apply.

The application and a subsequent request for reconsideration were dismissed.