Peter A. McSherry

The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint regarding the adequacy and fairness of her salary.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to give notice of her intention to file the complaint to her Deputy Minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by s. 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant conceded that her notice was filed outside the 14-day window following her last conversation with management about a potential salary increase.

The Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to relieve against them.

The employer's motion was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the timely allegation regarding a September 2014 email had no reasonable prospect of success and that the remaining allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the email allegation at the preliminary stage, finding that the respondent's explanation required evidence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of incidents occurring between 2000 and 2009 due to delay, as the gaps in time were too significant to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The July 2013 allegation was permitted to proceed pending further evidence.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration procedure.

The applicant argued that the grievance procedure was not being processed in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that dissatisfaction with the pace of the grievance process is not a sufficient reason to reverse the previous decision to defer the application until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the corporate respondent's business, which involves inter-provincial truck and rail transportation, is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent is engaged in transportation works extending beyond the limits of the province, placing it within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted criminally of assaulting a peace officer while off-duty.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, the decision was ordered to be published, and the member provided an undertaking to notify any future teaching employers of the incident and have them provide quarterly reports to the College for two years.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a certification vote, the employer and intervening employees challenged the results, arguing that a late change in polling times provided insufficient notice to employees and that a union official engaged in inappropriate conduct during the organizing campaign.

The Board dismissed the challenges, finding that the parties' extensive efforts to communicate the vote details and the high voter turnout offset any deficiencies in formal notice.

The Board also held that the union official's alleged rude behaviour did not constitute an unfair labour practice or threaten the integrity of the vote.

The union was certified.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union.

The employer and intervenors alleged improper conduct by a union official and challenged the adequacy of the vote.

The Board found insufficient basis to order a new vote and concluded the allegations could not amount to an unfair labour practice.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.