Jodi Gallagher Healy

The parties previously resolved a grievance through Minutes of Settlement that included confidentiality and no admission of liability clauses.

The Union conceded that it breached these terms by publishing in its 2018 Convention Update that the grievor 'won' his complaint.

The Union acknowledged the importance of settlement obligations and committed to upholding them in the future.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, the applicant sought to add two witnesses (her neurologist and a co-worker) and 13 documents to her evidence list.

The respondent opposed the request as untimely and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests, finding no abuse of process or prejudice to the respondent given the ample notice and time to respond.

The Tribunal also struck the evidence of a previously heard witness, as it was no longer relevant to the remaining issues in the case.

The applicant sought several interim orders in his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent health unit regarding his practicum placement.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add Western University as a respondent, finding no allegations that could support a Code violation by the university and that it would be unfair to add them.

The Tribunal also denied requests for document production of statistical data, referral to the Human Rights Commission, and an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his application to include an additional non-monetary remedy.

The respondent in a human rights application requested a confidentiality order regarding job application and interview documentation of non-parties to prevent the self-represented applicant from contacting other job applicants.

The Tribunal granted the order, noting the implied undertaking rule and the applicant's agreement not to contact the job applicants, directing that the documents not be used outside the proceedings or disclosed to third parties.

The applicant, a retail store manager, developed a work-related wrist injury that restricted her physical abilities.

She alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the duty to accommodate required the respondent to schedule the applicant to work alone and permit her to ask customers to return later if their requests exceeded her physical restrictions.

The Tribunal found that assisting customers was an essential duty of the position.

Since the proposed accommodation would exempt the applicant from performing an essential duty rather than enabling her to perform it, the Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate did not require the respondent to implement this measure.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to address facts and legal principles relating to undue hardship, issue estoppel, and the applicant's amended remedy request.

The applicant consented to the request.

Given the consent and the narrow scope of the amendments, the Tribunal granted the request and reminded the parties of the option for mediation-adjudication prior to the hearing.

Following dismissal of a motion brought in a certified class proceeding seeking disclosure about how insurance proceeds were expended, the successful defendants sought costs.

The representative plaintiffs argued success on the motion was divided because certain insurance information had been disclosed before the motion.

The court rejected this characterization and held the defendants were the successful party.

However, exercising discretion under the costs principles governing interlocutory motions, the court found the amount claimed exceeded what the unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

Partial indemnity costs were reduced and fixed at $4,500 inclusive.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a mass termination of employees, the representative plaintiffs brought a motion seeking further disclosure regarding the defendants’ insurance coverage, including details about the depletion of policy proceeds.

The defendants had already produced the policy and disclosed the remaining available coverage.

The court held that the discovery rules concerning insurance disclosure do not require detailed accounting of how insurance proceeds were spent, absent relevance to the issues in the litigation.

Additional disclosure could create unnecessary conflict between insured defendants and their insurer and was not necessary for the plaintiffs to decide whether to pursue or settle the litigation.

The motion for further disclosure was therefore dismissed.

Following a successful certification motion in a proposed class proceeding brought by former employees against corporate and individual defendants, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to their partial success on a Rule 21 motion and their role in narrowing the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court held that while the plaintiffs achieved overall success on certification, their success was limited because several causes of action were dismissed and the scope of the claims was reduced.

Exercising its discretion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court reduced the requested partial indemnity costs and awarded a global amount.

Costs of $50,000 inclusive were ordered payable forthwith to reflect the plaintiffs’ overall success.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of 521 dismissed employees of an insolvent call centre.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike several claims, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to pending Employment Standards Act proceedings and that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims but allowed the negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression remedy claims to proceed.

The court held that while s. 97 of the Employment Standards Act precluded some employees from advancing wrongful dismissal claims, it did not bar them from participating in the class action for the other tort and statutory claims.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The grievor alleged discrimination by the employer.

To facilitate the adjudication of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the parties to exchange medical documentation pertaining to the grievor's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board files.

The Board also directed three doctors to provide their complete medical records relating to the grievor to union counsel, who would then provide appropriate copies to employer counsel.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use solely to the arbitration proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability after being terminated for safety infractions and failing to swipe his time card.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking his termination to his age, nor did he provide evidence of a disability or a request for accommodation.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying her standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was both reasonable and correct.

The court further held that without standing, the applicant could not raise the issue of bias.

The court noted prematurity might also be a ground for dismissal but reserved definitive findings for written reasons to follow.