John Bruce

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance.

The grievance process concluded in November 2016, but the applicant did not file her request to reactivate until May 2017, well beyond the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the time limit and was not mentally prepared to proceed.

The Tribunal found the six-month delay to be significant and not adequately explained, concluding that the failure to inform herself of the Rules did not meet the test of good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and other grounds, following the termination of her employment.

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 dealt with in a prior labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration board had jurisdiction to hear the human rights issues, explicitly considered the employer's duty to accommodate, and awarded the applicant $20,000 in human rights damages.

Concluding that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested the production of two emails from the respondent prior to a preliminary hearing.

The respondent and intervenor objected, arguing the applicant provided no reasons or explanation of relevance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish arguable relevance and that the request was premature as the matter was not yet set for a full hearing.

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of her union grievances regarding failure to accommodate and termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment after previously settling a wrongful dismissal lawsuit with the respondent.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, relying on the Minutes of Settlement and Release which precluded further remedies.

The applicant argued the respondent breached the settlement by issuing an inaccurate Record of Employment and T4 form.

The Tribunal found no breach of the settlement, concluding the respondent met its obligations.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

During a jurisdictional dispute consultation, the Vice-Chair sought submissions on whether a Board Member should continue on the panel given his past employment as a senior official in Ontario Hydro's labour relations area.

One of the responding unions objected, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the Board Member had no actual involvement in the specific 1979 dispute being relied upon, and his general background and experience in construction labour relations at Ontario Hydro did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.

The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.

The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.

The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.