Mark Zega

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of four decisions by the respondent school board finding she breached the Trustee Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the full investigation reports to the applicant and the decision-makers.

The Court also found the decisions unreasonable as they lacked intelligibility, the sanctions were excessive and punitive, and the Board failed to consider the applicant's s. 2(b) Charter rights.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought motions to stay sanctions imposed against her by the respondent school board for violating its Trustee Code of Conduct, pending the hearing of her judicial review applications.

The sanctions included barring her from attending board and committee meetings and a public censure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay, finding that there were serious issues to be tried regarding the board's process and jurisdiction, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if barred from meetings she could never attend again, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant as her application would be largely moot if she served the sanctions before the hearing.

The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.

The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.

The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The moving parties (respondents in a judicial review application) brought a motion to strike twelve affidavits filed by the responding parties.

The underlying application challenged a university tribunal's decision to suspend several tenured professors for workplace harassment.

The court struck the affidavit of an expert witness because it improperly opined on Ontario law.

However, the court declined to strike the remaining affidavits, finding that the evidence regarding the pre-hearing investigation, hearing process, and post-hearing impacts was relevant to the responding parties' procedural fairness arguments and should be assessed by the panel hearing the judicial review.

The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.

The applicant school board opposed the motion.

The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and unions, relating to events dating back to 1998 and a 2004 arbitration.

The applicant claimed the application was timely because she received financial records in September 2012 confirming no interpreter was paid for during the 2004 arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of confirming documents did not constitute a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Following a finding that the respondent school board discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability and terminating her employment, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to a suitable alternative position, finding that the passage of time did not render the employment relationship unviable.

The respondent was also ordered to pay lost wages from June 2003 to the date of reinstatement, make pension and benefit adjustments, and pay $30,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

A motion by the respondent for the adjudicator to recuse herself for reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil suit based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil suit was a shareholder oppression action that did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies for such violations.

The Tribunal concluded that section 34(11) did not apply and declined to defer the application, allowing it to proceed.

The applicant passed away intestate after filing a human rights application.

Her husband sought to continue the application without being appointed as estate trustee by a court, arguing the Tribunal could appoint him as personal representative under its procedural powers.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the authority to bypass the comprehensive statutory regime governing estates.

An estate trustee must be appointed by the Superior Court of Justice before the application can proceed.

The applicant, a former supervisor of asbestos removal, developed a mental disability (anxiety, depression, PTSD) due to the stress and potential personal liability associated with her position.

After a period of disability leave, she sought to return to work in an alternative position that did not carry the same level of health and safety liability.

The respondent school board failed to actively canvass available alternative positions, refused to meet with her vocational rehabilitation consultant, and ultimately terminated her employment upon receiving a medical report confirming she could not return to her pre-absence position.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to fulfill its duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application regarding his termination from employment.

He sought to introduce new medical evidence of a somatization disorder diagnosis obtained after his termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could not potentially be determinative of the case because the employer had no knowledge of the condition at the time of the termination and therefore no duty to accommodate was triggered.

The applicant, an assistant caretaker, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance regarding a salary differential.

The differential arose from a merger of two school boards, where some former employees' salaries were red-circled.

The union obtained a legal opinion and concluded the differential was based on a factor other than sex, thus not violating section 32 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union's decision not to grieve was considered, based on legal advice, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complainant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of marital status after she was transferred and subjected to a poisoned work environment due to her relationship with another employee.

The Board of Inquiry found that at the time of the transfer, the complainant was only dating the employee, which does not fall within the definition of marital status under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Board held that the Code's protection against discrimination based on marital status does not extend to the identity of a particular spouse, as it protects against group characteristics rather than individual identity.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent Case Managers employed by the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. The parties agreed on all matters except the bargaining unit description.

The applicant sought a unit limited to Case Managers who are Registered and Graduate Nurses, while the responding party argued for a unit of all Case Managers.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation, applying the test from Hospital for Sick Children.

The Board determined that a unit of all Case Managers was appropriate and, as more than 55% of the employees in that unit had applied for membership, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith when its elected trustees refused to ratify a tentative collective agreement.

The employer argued that the settlement was expressly subject to ratification and that severe provincial funding cuts justified the trustees' decision to reject the settlement.

The Board found that the employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith, as the change in economic circumstances was real and compelling, and the employer was entitled to reconsider its bargaining position.

The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to return to the bargaining table.