John Bartolomeo

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

On the first day of the scheduled hearing, during a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant requested to withdraw her application.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw but, noting the significant public and private resources already expended, ordered that the withdrawal be with prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a new application regarding the same facts.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay travel expenses for his psychiatric treatments.

The respondent argued it was only obligated to pay expenses for treatments it deemed 'necessary as a result of the injury' under the WSIA, and that the applicant negotiated in bad faith by not disclosing an anticipated increase in treatment frequency.

The Tribunal found the settlement agreement did not condition travel expense reimbursement on an adjudicative finding of medical necessity, provided the treatments were for the compensable injury.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of bad faith by the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay past and future travel costs and $1,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a work-related injury rather than performance issues.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) was dealing with the same substance.

The Tribunal found that the primary issue at the WSIB—whether the termination was related to the injury or performance—was the same as the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a final decision from the WSIB.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated after he reported a work-related injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the application by denying the applicant's claim for benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting the applicant had filed an objection to the WSIB decision, meaning it was not a final decision.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise if they wished to participate in mediation or make submissions on deferring the application pending the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to reimburse him for expenses related to psychiatric treatments as agreed in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent argued the increased frequency of visits demonstrated bad faith and that the treatments were not necessary for the compensable injury.

Finding ambiguity in the Minutes and noting the bad faith allegations, the Tribunal ordered an in-person hearing to hear extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability (diabetes) when a case manager denied him benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is not protected by adjudicative immunity, that the application falls within its jurisdiction because it alleges discrimination under the Code, and that the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and age regarding the reduction of a meal allowance and the failure to convert his paper file to electronic form.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding that it would not be fair, just, and expeditious to defer, as the Tribunal was the better forum to adjudicate the accommodation issue and the age discrimination issue was not before the WSIB.

The applicant, who receives benefits from the respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding the reduction of his meal allowance and the failure to convert his paper file to electronic form.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised required evidence to be heard and could not be dismissed at this early stage.

The application was permitted to proceed to the next stage in the hearing process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after requesting accommodation for chemical sensitivity and indicating an intent to file a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the concurrent WSIB claim.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB process might take a very long time and would not address the human rights allegations unless it first found a work-related condition, and even then, could not provide a remedy for Code infringements.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and age in respect of employment.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the alleged phone calls demanding the applicant return to work were sufficiently connected to the other allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a patternmaker, alleged that her employment was terminated due to her disability (sensitivity to chemical solvents) and that the corporate respondent failed to accommodate her by not providing a chemical-free work environment.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the applicant was permitted to work in the office away from the factory floor, and that the sole reason for her termination was the downsizing of the operation and its relocation to Bangladesh.

The application was dismissed.