Mark Stone

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The original application alleged termination based on disability, but was dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release after accepting a severance package.

The applicant argued for reconsideration based on ongoing medical issues and dissatisfaction with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d) and dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to a disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly covered claims under the Human Rights Code and that there was no evidence of duress or insufficient consideration to vitiate the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The action was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to respond to a status notice.

The plaintiff's counsel argued the delay was due to the plaintiff's diagnosis with a brain tumour and subsequent death, which made obtaining instructions difficult.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that while the medical condition explained some delay, it did not excuse the failure to request a status hearing or the 11-month delay in bringing the motion to set aside.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendant, and actual prejudice was found due to the plaintiff's death and the loss of evidence regarding mitigation.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent terminated his employment during a medical leave and failed to assist him in obtaining insurance benefits.

The applicant also commenced two civil actions related to his injuries and insurance benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding a significant overlap in key factual disputes between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil actions to avoid inconsistent results.

The applicant, a janitor with a mental health disability, sought an interim remedy to allow him to listen to his MP3 player at work, which he claimed mitigated his symptoms.

The respondent had banned the device for safety reasons.

The Tribunal granted the interim remedy, finding the applicant had an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured him, and the remedy was just and appropriate, provided he only used the device in non-hazardous areas.

The appellants, owners of hotels and other businesses, brought a civil action for defamation, interference with economic relations, and conspiracy to injure against an employee and union steward who delivered a speech to customers.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the dispute was essentially a workplace dispute governed by the collective agreement, thereby ousting the court's jurisdiction under the Weber framework.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the facts and context of the dispute were overwhelmingly employment-related and that the appellants had initially treated the matter as a workplace incident by taking disciplinary steps.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former employee, a refrigeration mechanic.

The employer argued the employee was covered by the construction exemption in Regulation 327(2)(e) of the Employment Standards Act, which exempts persons employed in the repair of works at the site thereof.

The Board found that the majority of the work performed by the employee was repair work at the customer's premises, rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the employee fell within the construction exemption and was not entitled to termination pay.

The Order to Pay was rescinded.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties entered into a memorandum of agreement acknowledging a sale of business and the future intermingling of employees represented by two different unions.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the agreement, which provided for the issuance of a certificate to the applicant for certain locations, the continuation of the intervenor's bargaining rights at other locations, and a future representation vote to determine the bargaining agent for the intermingled employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employers bargained in bad faith by insisting on terms regarding insurance and brokerage fees that were worse than those in the pre-existing service agreements.

The Board held that once the parties bargained a collective agreement (or had one imposed by arbitration), the service agreement terms on those subjects were superseded.

Following the expiry of the statutory freeze, the employers were entitled to alter those terms.

The bad faith bargaining complaint was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer parties bargained in bad faith by failing to recognize a collective agreement that the union claimed was ratified by its members.

The negotiations involved three parties: the union, the taxi brokerage, and an associates committee.

The union had put two separate, incomplete, and somewhat inconsistent employer proposals to a ratification vote.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the proposals were not complete or intended as final offers capable of forming a collective agreement upon ratification, and that the employers had not violated the Act.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 applied for certification of a bargaining unit of plumbers, plumbers' apprentices, and construction labourers employed by Rolan Plumbing in the non-ICI construction sector.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 46 intervened, arguing that individuals performing plumbing work without proper certification under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act (TQAA) could not be included in the bargaining unit as construction labourers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the TQAA applies to non-ICI certification applications and that individuals performing plumbing work in contravention of the TQAA cannot be characterized as construction labourers.

Consequently, such individuals are excluded from the list of employees for the purpose of the certification application.

The union applied for interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking an order that the responding parties produce financial and lease information necessary for collective bargaining.

The responding parties objected to producing lease agreements, citing confidentiality and competitive sensitivity.

The Board found an arguable case on the merits and that the balance of harm favoured granting the order.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce the requested information, subject to confidentiality restrictions, to facilitate bargaining for a second collective agreement.