Karen M. Sargeant

The applicant, a 43-year-old property accountant, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the termination was part of a corporate reorganization and based on the applicant's performance issues.

The Tribunal found no evidence, statistical or otherwise, to support the allegation of age discrimination.

The respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination, demonstrating that age was not a factor in the decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal against his former employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the reprisal allegation, as there was no evidence linking the applicant's dismissal to his prior accommodation requests.

The failure to accommodate allegations were dismissed for delay, as they occurred more than a year before the application was filed and were not part of a series of incidents with the termination.

The application against the union was also dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, later amended to include reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application raised issues of fact and credibility that required a full hearing, and therefore declined to dismiss it.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's premature request for document production.

The respondents requested that evidence given by a union representative before the Ontario Labour Relations Board be accepted as uncontested facts in the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB had only assumed facts for the purpose of a motion to dismiss and had not made actual findings of fact regarding the disputed evidence.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the complainant's pleadings.

They argued the allegations were untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the complaint.

The Tribunal found that most of the impugned paragraphs formed part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint and did not expand its scope.

The Tribunal struck one portion of a paragraph on consent, declined to strike the rest, but ordered the complainant and the Commission to provide further particulars for five of the paragraphs.

The applicant union sought certification for employees working at Esso.

The employees were supplied by Best Personnel Services, a temporary personnel agency.

The core issue was whether Esso or Best was the true employer.

Applying the York Condominium factors, the Board found that Esso exercised fundamental control over the employment relationship, including direction, supervision, discipline, and determining when the employment relationship began and ended.

Consequently, the Board determined that Esso was the true employer for the purposes of the certification application.