Madeleine Loewenberg

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant alleged that his termination at age 46 was discriminatory and that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in its findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no errors of law and holding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the applicant's performance and the employer's business reasons for termination were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age after his employment was terminated at age 46.

He claimed his performance ratings dropped and he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after a vice president learned his age.

The Tribunal found that the vice president had no role in managing the applicant's performance or the decision to terminate him.

The respondent provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, specifically a reduction in headcount and the applicant's average performance.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order permitting three of its witnesses, who reside outside of Canada, to testify by videoconference or telephone.

The applicant did not consent but failed to file a response demonstrating that an electronic hearing would cause significant prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the inability to observe a witness's demeanour by telephone is not a compelling reason to require in-person testimony, and directed that the witnesses testify on continuation dates to allow for precise scheduling.

A worker employed by a small roofing company fell from a ladder while working on a residential roofing project and died from his injuries.

The company was convicted of failing to ensure a fall arrest system was in place and failing to notify the Ministry within 48 hours of the death.

The owner and operator was convicted of failing to ensure workers used fall arrest systems as a supervisor and furnishing false information to an inspector.

The court imposed jail sentences on the individual defendant and substantial fines on the corporate defendant, emphasizing the need for general deterrence in an industry with persistent fall-related injuries and fatalities.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the age discrimination claim for delay, the reprisal claim for lack of jurisdiction, and other complaints as unrelated to protected grounds.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the applicant alleged a series of incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the request to dismiss the reprisal claim, as the alleged reprisal was for asserting rights under the Employment Standards Act, not the Human Rights Code.

The request to dismiss the remaining complaints was denied, as they were factual allegations relevant to the discrimination claim.

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

She claimed she was terminated and denied accommodation after suffering workplace injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not terminated, but rather was issued a Record of Employment for illness to allow her to collect sickness benefits.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent had offered modified work, but the applicant was physically unable to perform any available duties.

As the applicant failed to establish any adverse treatment, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The respondent's request for early production of documents was denied as premature.

The Tribunal dismissed portions of the application relating to unsafe working conditions and verbal harassment for lack of jurisdiction and delay, but declined to dismiss pre-March 2010 allegations at this stage.

The applicant's request to amend her application to add sexual harassment allegations was denied due to significant delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant, a former waitress at the respondents' restaurant, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

She claimed the personal respondent made sexual comments, touched her inappropriately, and terminated her employment when she confronted him.

She also alleged post-termination reprisals, including a threat of civil action from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferring the respondents' evidence that she was terminated for poor work performance.

The Tribunal also held that the threat of civil action in a letter from the respondents' counsel was protected by absolute privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal claim.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent by unilaterally reducing his commission from 18% to 9%.

The trial judge awarded a 15-month notice period, 3 months of Wallace damages for a toxic work environment, and 8 years of unpaid vacation and public holiday pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on constructive dismissal, the Bardal factors for notice, the Wallace damages, and the respondent's entitlement to statutory holiday and vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act.