Roy C. Filion

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision was based on incorrect information and that the adjudicator failed to consider certain evidence regarding alleged discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and repair deficiencies, and failed to establish any new determinative evidence or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and wrongful dismissal by the respondent school board.

The applicant also filed a concurrent grievance alleging termination without just cause.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the grievance would likely deal with the same allegations of discriminatory treatment and that allowing both to proceed simultaneously could lead to inconsistent findings.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

He claimed that after an incident with a student, he was falsely accused of making a racist comment, which led to negative references and a failure to secure long-term occasional teaching positions.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that his race or related grounds were factors in his treatment, or that he was subjected to reprisal for asserting his human rights.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed requests to schedule a witness, split her testimony, and compel certain individuals to attend the hearing to listen to her impact evidence.

The respondent requested production of the applicant's complete clinical file and long-term disability application documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and disability documents, finding them arguably relevant to her claims of failure to accommodate and health impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the witness scheduling request but denied the requests to compel attendance and split testimony.

The applicant filed requests to amend her human rights application and to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend in part, allowing new allegations regarding the back-to-work process but denying amendments related to a recent job posting to avoid prejudicing the respondent.

The request to expedite was denied, as the applicant's stress and financial situation did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence, especially given the impending hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board and several personal respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization on consent.

The applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to psychological strain was denied, as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding because the school board conceded liability for their actions in the course of employment.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application, except for allegations relating to settlement discussions and counsel conduct.

A request for document production was denied as premature.

The defendant employer appealed a master's order requiring production of an external investigation report prepared by a lawyer following a fatal incident at a long‑term care facility.

The employer argued the report and related documents were protected by solicitor‑client privilege and that the master erred in ordering disclosure.

The court held the investigation was undertaken for the purpose of providing legal advice and was therefore privileged, rejecting the master’s finding that the lawyer had not been retained in that capacity and rejecting application of the common interest exception.

However, the court concluded that privilege had been waived through fairness considerations and public disclosure of portions of the report’s findings by the employer’s representatives.

The master’s order requiring production was upheld.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of his employment in exchange for a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a sophisticated business person, was given time to review the release and freely entered into the agreement without duress or coercion.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after being unsuccessful in two job competitions.

After hearing the applicant's case and the respondent's key witness, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of racial bias, noting that the successful candidate was clearly superior and the applicant's own references did not recommend her for the position.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include two new allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the factors against granting the amendment outweighed those in favour.

Specifically, the applicant waited more than 10 weeks to file the request after the last alleged incident, and neither party had disclosed documents or witnesses regarding the new allegations in advance of the upcoming hearing.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application for the reprisal allegations.

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

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent school board to temporarily remove their two children from their school.

The board made the decision after the father received threatening emails from someone with access to the school's computers, which also threatened the children.

The Divisional Court found that the board's decision was reasonable given the safety concerns and the ongoing police investigation, and dismissed the application for judicial review and injunctive relief.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted statutory holiday pay to employees on inactive status receiving WSIB benefits.

The employer argued the arbitrator failed to address its central argument under s. 24(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which would result in zero holiday pay for these employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as it lacked justification and intelligibility regarding how the entitlement to payment was determined without addressing the statutory formula.

The application was allowed and the issue remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment based on disability.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application, arguing that its subject-matter was substantially the same as prior complaints filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the allegations concerning events up to January 2008 were substantially the same as the prior complaints and were outside its jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application and directed the applicant to provide particulars for the remaining allegations concerning events after January 2008, scheduling a conference call hearing to address the remaining requests to dismiss.

The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.

Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process that resulted in Minutes of Settlement in 2006 and 2008.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process and subsequent settlements constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The applications were dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement based on a consent filed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay trial costs of $97,000 to one appellant, and $250,000 plus GST and disbursements to the other appellants.

The appellants, a school principal, teacher, and secretary, appealed a decision dismissing their motion to dismiss the respondent teacher's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants argued the dispute's essential character was covered by a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the alleged conduct—including complaints to police, the Children's Aid Society, and the dissemination of false information—was not anchored in the performance of teaching duties and thus not limited to the collective agreement's remedies.

The employee was terminated from his position as CFO but agreed to the assignment of his employment contract to an affiliated company within the corporate group.

The trial judge found that the contract was terminated and awarded the employee two years' severance pay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by concluding the contract was terminated rather than assigned, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding an alleged forbearance agreement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the severance award, and the employee's cross-appeal for negligent misrepresentation against the individual defendant was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.