7 total
Human rights application dismissed under s. 45.1 because a grievance arbitrator previously dealt with the discrimination allegations.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was not selected for a position at a newly opened hotel.
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 grievance arbitration process.
The Tribunal found that the reviewer in the grievance process acted as an arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act and had jurisdiction to apply the Code.
Because the arbitrator had considered and dismissed the applicant's discrimination allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and dismissed the application.
Human rights application dismissed; employee failed to prove employer knew of disability before termination.
The applicant alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by terminating his employment after he refused to perform his duties due to pain.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be internally inconsistent and preferred the employer's evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish he had a disability that prevented him from performing his normal duties, and that he had not informed the employer of any need for accommodation before he was terminated for insubordination.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; discoverability doctrine does not excuse delay to gather evidence.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal nearly 20 months after her termination.
The respondents requested the application be dismissed for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant argued the limitation period should start from when she discovered the alleged discriminatory reason for her termination during an Employment Standards Act meeting.
The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the facts giving rise to the alleged breach at the time of her discipline and termination, and that the discoverability doctrine does not exist to allow aggrieved persons to delay making a claim to gather evidence.
The application was dismissed as out of time with no good faith reason for the delay.
Human rights application dismissed as barred by ongoing civil action seeking damages for Code infringement.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability.
The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal seeking damages for breach of the right to a workplace free of discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the factual situation in the application was the same as in the civil action, and the applicant was effectively seeking damages for a breach of the Code in court.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicative proceedings.
Certification application dismissed for failure to timely file representations establishing the identity of the employer.
The applicant union filed a certification application.
The responding party asserted it was not the employer of the proposed bargaining unit members, claiming they were employed by various personnel agencies.
The Board directed the parties to file detailed representations.
The applicant failed to file its representations on time, arguing it believed the identity of the employer was a 'status dispute' under Information Bulletin #4, which would allow a later filing.
The Board ruled that the identity of the employer is not a status dispute, refused to accept the applicant's late submissions, and dismissed the certification application for failing to establish a prima facie case that the responding party was the employer.
Taxi brokers and their associates declared related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
The union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for declarations that three taxi brokers and their respective associates should be treated as one employer for collective bargaining purposes.
The Board found that the brokers and associates carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction, given their functional integration and mutual economic dependence.
The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declarations and ordered a specific bargaining structure, as agreed upon by most parties, to ensure associates have a formal role in negotiations.
Witness in certification hearing directed to produce existing documents with original signatures for expert comparison.
During a hearing for an application for certification, an issue arose during the cross-examination of a witness regarding a non-pay allegation.
The union requested that the witness be compelled to create twenty specimen signatures or produce documents containing twenty original signatures for comparison by an expert witness.
The Board ruled that the witness had the right to consult with counsel during his testimony under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Board declined to compel the creation of new specimen signatures but directed the witness to produce existing documents in his possession containing twenty original signatures to facilitate the hearing.
