Piper Henderson

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability against her employer and union.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there were no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the union.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer relating to the period prior to February 2012 under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that a previous labour arbitration decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of those accommodation issues.

The hearing was directed to reconvene to address the remaining allegations concerning the period after February 2012 and the applicant's termination.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against her employer and unions alleging discrimination based on disability, failure to accommodate, and failure to properly represent her in grievances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her applications to include recent events including her termination.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against OPSEU and most allegations against Unifor as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence that the unions' actions were discriminatory.

The allegations against the employer and the remaining allegations against Unifor regarding post-termination events were allowed to proceed to a hearing, where the potential application of section 45.1 of the Code will be considered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his former employer, Chrysler, and his union, Unifor.

Chrysler terminated the applicant's employment following an investigation into workplace drugs, and the union subsequently withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application against Chrysler was untimely and if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against Chrysler was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the union failed to inform her of decisions, provided misleading information, delayed accommodation, and failed to inform her of union meetings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions or inactions to her disability, or showing that the union participated in a discriminatory rule or impeded the employer's accommodation efforts.

The application against the union was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that his employer and union discriminated and reprised against him by eliminating a position for which he had successfully bid.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the employer eliminated the position as a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint, as the employer provided a legitimate explanation that the position was temporary and another employee was also affected.

The allegations against the union president were dismissed as untimely and lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against her employer, her union, and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the named personal respondents.

The applicant consented to the removal of the employer's personal respondents but opposed the removal of the union representatives, though she provided no written submissions.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the union representatives as personal respondents, as the core allegations concerned their failure to properly address her workplace issues on behalf of the union.

The Tribunal ordered all personal respondents removed from the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed.

The parties agreed to resolve the application and entered into a written settlement.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw the application, and the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to finally dispose of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a practising Sikh, alleged discrimination in employment because of creed, specifically regarding the respondent's requirement that his beard be bound.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada (WSO) requested intervenor status to make submissions on the accommodation of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for intervention and granted the WSO's request, finding it was well-placed to provide assistance on the significance of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Union and the Union requested to continue as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also addressed outstanding disclosure issues, noting the corporate respondent's failure to comply with previous disclosure orders, and ordered the respondent to provide contact information for two proposed witnesses.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents.

The corporate respondent had failed to comply with disclosure rules and demanded the applicant's counsel visit its office to review documents and pay for copies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the corporate respondent to immediately provide a list of relevant documents and produce them by a specified date, or formally claim privilege.