John Mastoras

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to end a long-standing policy allowing employees and retirees to be occasionally accompanied by one non-paying guest on GO Transit.

The union argued the collective agreement's reference to 'transportation services' was ambiguous and should be interpreted in light of past practice, or alternatively, that the employer was estopped from changing the policy until the agreement expired.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language unambiguously applied only to the cardholders themselves.

The Board also held that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply because the benefit was not part of standard compensation for work performed and its 'occasional' nature was too imprecise to enforce.

The respondent requested deferral of the human rights application pending the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) and challenges to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) decisions.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIAT appeal regarding the quantum of a Non-Economic Loss award and the WSIB challenges regarding physiotherapy and computer training did not have a direct bearing on whether the respondent accommodated the applicant up to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal concluded there was no risk of overlapping or conflicting decisions.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment exceeding $543,000, the court issued supplementary reasons on costs after learning that the plaintiff had previously delivered a formal offer to settle under Rule 49.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The judgment obtained was more favourable than the terms of the offer.

Applying Rule 49 cost consequences, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to the date of judgment.

The adjustment increased the plaintiff’s cost entitlement.

The total costs award was amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing WSIB internal appeal and a related grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB appeal involved overlapping factual issues regarding accommodation, making deferral appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Officer issues a decision, but declined to defer to the grievance process due to its uncertain status.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour against the respondent restaurant and its managers.

During cross-examination on the second day of the hearing, the complainant admitted to lying during his evidence-in-chief regarding his mitigation efforts and subsequent employment.

Following an adjournment, the Commission withdrew from carriage of the complaint and the complainant withdrew his complaint.

The Tribunal formally dismissed the complaint and reserved the respondents' right to speak to costs.

During a hearing for a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment, the complainant admitted under cross-examination to lying about his post-employment work history.

The respondents moved for an adjournment sine die to consider their position and potential motions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the seriousness of lying under oath and the need for all parties, including the Tribunal itself, to consider potential actions such as contempt proceedings or reporting the matter for perjury investigation.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials engaged in an unlawful strike.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement in which they agreed that any work refusal or slowdown contrary to the Act is unlawful and that the union would take immediate steps to end such activity.

Based on the consent of the parties, the Board terminated the proceedings.

The union applied for certification on the same day the employer's plant began a summer shutdown.

The employer posted the required notice to employees, but no employees were at work to see it before the terminal date expired.

The employer argued the application should be voided ab initio due to lack of notice.

The Board found that while proper notice was not given, the appropriate remedy was not to dismiss the application but to extend the terminal date to allow employees an opportunity to participate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor trade union and the responding employer asserted that their existing collective agreement constituted a complete bar to the application.

The applicant challenged the validity of the agreement, alleging that the intervenor was not entitled to represent the employees at the time it was entered into and that it had received improper employer support.

The Board found that the agreement was a valid pre-hire arrangement common in the construction industry, that the employees had freely voted to accept it, and that there was no improper employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union applied to combine the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a supermarket.

Shortly after, an employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the full-time unit.

The Board determined that the termination application should be given procedural priority over the combination application to preserve the employees' representation rights.

On the merits of the termination application, the Board found that the petition in support of termination was voluntary, despite the presence of the employer's children in the bargaining unit and the manner in which signatures were collected.

A representation vote was ordered.

The union applied for an interim order to reinstate 28 employees who were laid off when the employer contracted out its warehousing operations.

The union alleged the employer made representations during collective bargaining that it would not contract out the work.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the employer.

The harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied by a final order, whereas the employer would suffer significant, unrecoverable financial harm and disruption if forced to reverse its contracting out arrangements on an interim basis.

The union's delay in bringing the application also weighed against granting relief.