Risa Pancer

The applicant, a paramedic and union steward, crossed the picket line during a 2002 strike.

He subsequently faced workplace harassment from colleagues and filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming his Christian faith prevented him from withdrawing medical services.

Following a hearing with multiple witnesses, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and concluded his decision to work was based on opposition to the strike's utility, not his religious beliefs.

The application was dismissed as the Code was not engaged.

The applicant, a caretaker with medical restrictions, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed the respondent improperly deducted a sick day, assigned work violating his medical restrictions, and failed to reinstate his dental benefits.

The Tribunal found the sick day deduction was an administrative error that was corrected, the work assignment was modified when the applicant raised concerns, and the lack of dental benefits was due to the applicant's failure to enroll.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the allegations had been the subject of previous OHRC complaints and union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the application that overlapped with the prior OHRC complaint under s. 53(8) of the Code, and the portions that had been resolved through grievance settlements under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to include a new allegation of reprisal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when he was denied sick pay during a lawful strike.

The applicant had agreed to delay his sick leave to assist the respondent, but the strike commenced on the day his leave began.

The Tribunal held that the denial of sick pay was due to the collective agreement not being in effect during the strike, not the applicant's disability.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for failing to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

Concurrently, his union grieved his termination and other matters, resulting in a 'Last Chance Agreement' and Minutes of Settlement that reinstated him and required him to withdraw all outstanding human rights applications.

The applicant subsequently sought to expedite his Tribunal application, arguing the Minutes were void or contrary to the Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily settled the matters and that allowing the application to proceed would violate the principle of finality and constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability by his employer, TCHC, and his union.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding delay, as many of the allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations against TCHC and the individual employer respondent, as well as the pre-December 2007 allegations against the union.

The application was permitted to continue against the union regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on breach of settlement and reprisal, following his termination for sexual harassment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the labour arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the arbitrator fully addressed the issues, applied human rights principles, and provided adequate safeguards.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after previously signing Minutes of Settlement resolving a union grievance regarding his termination.

The settlement included a full and final release of all claims under provincial or federal legislation.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that while the grievance process may not have dealt with the substance of the human rights complaint, the clear intention of the settlement was to bar any further claims arising from the employment relationship.

Finding no evidence of unconscionability or lack of capacity, the Tribunal held that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision seeking submissions on whether the application should be deferred because of an ongoing grievance dealing with the same issues.

The respondent and the intervenor union opposed deferral, with the respondent arguing the application was an attempt to challenge his authority and should be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the facts and issues in the grievance were largely the same.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, citing difficulties obtaining medical reports and witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

As the applicant was unprepared to proceed and called no evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of evidence.

The grievor was absent from work for three years due to alleged illness.

The employer required the grievor to allow its medical doctor to speak with her doctor to verify her inability to work and explore accommodation.

The grievor, citing privacy concerns, consistently refused to provide consent and refused to return to work.

The employer terminated her employment for just cause.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that while the grievor had a right to medical privacy, her refusal to allow the employer to verify her medical information gave the employer the right to insist she return to work.

By refusing to return, she breached a fundamental term of employment, justifying her termination.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the consultation because her counsel was unable to attend due to a severe snow storm.

The responding parties opposed the adjournment.

The Board granted the adjournment to avoid prejudice to the applicant, noting that her counsel's absence was through no fault of his own.

OPSEU and individual former Crown employees filed applications alleging that the responding municipalities violated O. Reg. 10/99 by failing to properly credit their seniority after they were transferred to municipal employment.

The intervenor union (CUPE) and the responding municipalities raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the applicants' standing.

The Board held that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to enforce the regulation directly, as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act does not provide a mechanism for individual employees or their former bargaining agent to apply to the Board for such redress.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union was certified to represent employees of a personnel business working at a social service agency.

The agency terminated its contract with the personnel business and directly hired all the employees, maintaining the same operations, location, and clientele.

The union argued this constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the personnel business's essential asset was its specialized workforce, and the transfer of this workforce to the agency constituted a sale of a part of a business.

Consequently, the union's bargaining rights continued with the agency as the successor employer.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote held following the restructuring of the school board, alleging irregularities including inadequate posting of the notice of vote and locked doors at polling stations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the allegations under section 23(19) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board found that even if the allegations were true, the number of affected voters was too small to alter the outcome of the vote, and the results reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

In the context of a school board amalgamation, the applicant union applied for a single 'all employee' non-teaching bargaining unit.

The responding employer and two other unions proposed two bargaining units: one for maintenance/service and one for office/clerical/teaching assistants.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two bargaining units were appropriate, noting the history of a successful two-unit structure at one of the predecessor boards and the substantial size of each proposed unit.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Nurses Association applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning a retirement home, Livingston Lodge.

The unions argued that the various Meadowcroft entities and Nutra 2000, which was sub-contracted to manage the staff, were under common control and direction.

The Board found that the core activities of the retirement home were contracted out to Nutra 2000, but Meadowcroft retained strict control over the budget, staffing complement, and operations.

The Board concluded that the entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a related employer declaration to ensure a stable foundation for collective bargaining.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to present arguments and evidence regarding systemic race discrimination at her discharge grievance arbitration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had carriage of the grievance and was not obligated to follow the applicant's instructions on how to present the case, provided it fairly and carefully considered her suggestions.

The Board noted that the union had vigorously and thoroughly represented the applicant by advancing other arguments, including a poisoned work environment and differential treatment.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time and casual nurses at the responding hospital.

A representation vote was held within five days of the application, resulting in a majority for the union.

The employer challenged the vote, arguing the short timeframe and single voting day provided insufficient notice and access for casual employees.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the statutory five-day quick vote model applied and the parties' own efforts ensured adequate notice.

On the issue of the bargaining unit description, the Board agreed with the employer that the part-time unit should 'mirror' the historical full-time unit, which was restricted to nurses providing direct nursing care, to avoid serious labour relations harm.

A final certificate was issued for the restricted unit.