Joseph Tascona

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an order for the production of pay statements and time sheets of the employee who allegedly replaced him.

The applicant argued these documents were necessary to confirm the respondent's calculations and determine his wage loss.

The Tribunal found the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issue of wage loss and ordered the respondent to produce them, reminding the parties that documents obtained through disclosure may only be used for the proceeding.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights allegations of harassment spanning July to November 2012, arguing they had been appropriately dealt with in a prior union grievance pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that unlike a previous grievance settlement in this matter, there were no signed Minutes of Settlement establishing the scope of the resolution, and the applicant's agreement to the withdrawal of the grievance was in dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, concluding that the issue could not be resolved without hearing evidence and making credibility findings.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal by her employer following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal of certain allegations, arguing they were resolved through a union grievance or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success and scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine if the grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal also granted in part the applicant's request to amend her application to add specific reprisal allegations, noting the early stage of the proceedings and lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order for the applicant to produce clinical records relating to her disability diagnosis.

The applicant opposed the request and also sought to exclude one of the respondent's witnesses from testifying due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the clinical records, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of whether she has a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to exclude the witness, finding no conflict of interest that would justify such an order.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability by her employer and a manager.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the allegations under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's return to work, finding that a grievance settlement signed by the applicant and the union appropriately dealt with those issues.

The Tribunal also removed the manager as a personal respondent and declined to add the union as a party.

The applicant was directed to provide further particulars regarding her remaining allegations of harassment and reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to compel the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant had failed to comply with the disclosure deadline and did not respond to the respondents' request.

The Tribunal granted the request, emphasizing the importance of document exchange and compliance with Tribunal directions.

The applicant was ordered to deliver the required documents or confirm she would not rely on further documents, failing which her application could be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending the completion of grievance procedures.

Following a settlement of the grievance, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and noted it would consider the respondents' subsequent requests for summary hearing and dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding her return to work and a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union and the employer were proceeding to arbitration on a grievance raising the same facts and issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondents and the union supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedures to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board dismissed the application with respect to the non-ICI sector as untimely, having been brought less than six months after certification.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the application due to the short time since certification.

The Board held it had no such discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because the union's prior certification application was not 'unsuccessful'.

Despite the applicant having admitted to lying to the Board in the prior certification proceedings regarding the origination of a petition, the Board found his testimony in the current proceeding plausible and concluded the new petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.