Mark Geiger

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to medical issues and an inability to secure legal representation.

The applicant provided a medical note confirming his health concerns, and the respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to accommodate the applicant's medical condition, subject to the applicant providing updated medical information by a specified date.

The Tribunal noted that lack of counsel alone is not a valid reason for an adjournment.

The applicant's additional request for an order for production of documents was denied as premature in light of the adjournment.

A private elector brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining a municipal councillor from attending or voting at city council meetings pending an application challenging the validity of the councillor’s election on residency grounds.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald and found that although there was a serious question to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the councillor to continue performing his duties, particularly given the public interest in municipal governance.

The requested injunction would effectively grant the ultimate relief sought prior to adjudication on the merits.

The applicant sought an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining a municipal councillor from attending or voting at meetings of a city council.

The motion arose in the context of a dispute involving the councillor’s participation in municipal governance.

The court declined to grant the requested equitable relief.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed, with directions for the parties to provide written submissions on costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his return to work following a workplace injury.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the WSIB had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, as a second return-to-work meeting held within the one-year period had a different purpose (considering retraining) than the first meeting, constituting a separate incident in a series.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1 at this stage, finding further evidence was required.

The corporate respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing to obtain instructions from its insurer and gather documents.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings and the significant costs of travelling from overseas.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations, including the provision of detailed witness statements.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was initially sealed.

At the hearing, the intervenor and applicants moved to count the ballots, which the responding party opposed.

The Board directed the ballots be counted, finding no serious prejudice to the responding party.

As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party, the application was dismissed.

The Labourers' union brought a motion arguing that a prior Board decision (the Surdykowski decision) had finally determined that crew leaders in the residential roofing industry are employers, and that this finding was binding in the current proceedings under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Carpenters opposed the motion.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior determination regarding crew leaders generally was not fundamental to the substantive decision in that case, and that there was no identity of parties or privies between the Carpenters and the parties in the prior proceeding.

The Board also declined to apply the doctrine strictly for policy reasons, ensuring the Carpenters' right to a hearing on the merits regarding the employee status of crew leaders.

The complainant, a store manager, was terminated from her employment after taking a several-month medical leave for deep vein thrombosis.

She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap and reprisal.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that deep vein thrombosis is a temporary illness and does not constitute a handicap within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board also found that the respondents did not discriminate based on a perceived handicap, as a temporary illness cannot be perceived as a handicap under the Code.

The reprisal allegation was also dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.