3 total
An employer reserving the right to seek wage repayment pending judicial review is not contempt.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (the "Union") brought a motion to find the City of Toronto (the "City") in contempt of an arbitrator's award, which had been filed as a court order.
The award ordered the City to reinstate a grievor with compensation.
The City reinstated the grievor but reserved the right to seek repayment of wages and benefits if its ongoing judicial review application of the award was successful.
The Union argued this reservation constituted a conditional reinstatement and contempt.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the City's reservation of a future legal right, without imposing it as a condition of reinstatement, did not amount to deliberate and willful disobedience of the clear and unequivocal terms of the award.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after he was unsuccessful in a third job competition for a foreperson position.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.
The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations as untimely, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.
Application not dismissed under s. 45.1 as applicant did not implicitly accept union grievance settlements.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through grievance settlements between the employer and the union.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a party to the minutes of settlement and did not implicitly accept their terms, as the removal of disciplinary letters from his file was a unilateral measure by the employer.
The request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 was denied.
