Jordan Winch

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the claim was not discoverable until settlement negotiations broke down and the employer refused to make further payments.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, knew she had suffered damages and that litigation was an appropriate remedy shortly after her termination.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his termination was discriminatory and a reprisal.

Prior to the application, his union filed a grievance for unjust termination, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer had just cause to terminate the applicant.

The applicant and union explicitly chose not to raise human rights issues at the arbitration.

The Tribunal held that the substance of the application—the termination of employment—was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

Allowing the applicant to re-litigate the termination by raising discrimination arguments that could have been raised at arbitration would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's representative, whose application for a paralegal license was denied by the Law Society of Upper Canada for lack of good character, sought to represent the applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the unpaid friend exemption.

The Tribunal found that the representative met the criteria for the exemption, as he was acting on only three matters, was not receiving compensation, and was not carrying on a profession providing legal services.

The representative was permitted to act for the applicant at the next stage of the proceeding.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

He argued that the termination provision in his employment contract was ambiguous, failed to oust his common law entitlement to reasonable notice, and violated the Canada Labour Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the contractual language clearly rebutted the common law presumption and did not contravene the Code, as it explicitly incorporated statutory minimums if the contractual severance fell short.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration and subsequent judicial review.

The respondents requested that if re-activated, the Tribunal consider dismissing the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to determine whether the grievance proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a grievance arbitration.

After the arbitrator upheld the applicant's termination, the respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the applicant initiated an application for judicial review of the arbitration award.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and decided to further defer the human rights application until the judicial review proceedings are finalized, noting that the grievance proceedings are not final while a judicial review is pending.