Ryan Goldvine

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a grievance arbitration and subsequent settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant's union had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to resolve the grievance, but the applicant refused to sign or agree to its terms.

The Tribunal found that while the arbitration was a 'proceeding', it did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application because the applicant expressly objected to the settlement.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

The applicant conceded this point, and the Tribunal dismissed the existing allegations.

However, the applicant indicated an intention to amend his application to include subsequent events leading to his termination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a formal Request for an Order During Proceedings to set out the proposed amendments, failing which the application would be dismissed in its entirety.

The union, representing the applicant's workplace, requested to intervene in an application alleging discrimination based on record of offences.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome as potential remedies could impact the collective agreement or other members.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

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

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success against the union.

The Tribunal found that the essence of the allegations against the union was a failure to adequately represent her interests in the grievance process, which is a duty of fair representation issue outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction absent evidence of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his religious needs by not providing gender-separate break rooms.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting its knowledge of the workplace and a prior grievance settlement.

The respondent opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, finding it had an interest in the outcome and could assist regarding the terms and conditions of employment.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The application was previously deferred pending the outcome of union grievances.

Following the conclusion of the grievance process, both parties requested that the application be re-activated.

The union sought to intervene to protect the collective agreement and the integrity of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and re-activated the application.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or Rule 19.1 was deferred to a preliminary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant, a Special Constable with the Toronto Transit Commission, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because his permanent physical restrictions from a workplace injury prevented him from performing overtime work, resulting in lost income.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to pay an employee for work they are physically unable to perform.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to add an untimely allegation of age discrimination from 2004.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration proceeding.

Following the completion of the arbitration, the applicant filed a timely request to reactivate the application.

The respondent did not object to reactivation but requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a hearing to determine whether the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal.

A summary hearing was held to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously raised concerns about age discrimination in a letter to the employer, linking his recent discipline to his decision to continue working past age 65.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant might be able to establish a nexus between the alleged events and the protected grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application.

The applicants, paramedics employed by the City of Toronto, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding uniform policies and accommodation.

The respondents requested deferral of the applications because the applicants had concurrent active grievances dealing with the same factual allegations (payroll issues and letters of reprimand).

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the applications overlapped significantly with the subject matter of the outstanding grievances, which could potentially proceed to arbitration.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the applications pending the conclusion of the grievance processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file grievances and adequately represent him regarding workplace injuries and accommodation.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant disagreed with the union's representation decisions, he provided no evidence linking those decisions to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that complaints about the adequacy of union representation without evidence of discrimination fall under the duty of fair representation jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant, a self-identified Black person of East Indian origin, alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of race.

He claimed the union improperly excluded him from running for union positions, ignored his offer to volunteer, failed to intervene when he was subjected to humiliating comments at a meeting, and failed to adequately investigate his complaints of racism.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to link the union's actions to the applicant's race.

The Tribunal also found that the union's response to his complaints, while perhaps lacking promptness, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and reprisal.

During the hearing, after presenting his evidence, the Tribunal questioned whether a prima facie case had been established.

The applicant conceded there was no reasonable prospect of success and requested to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to finally dispose of the matter.

The applicant, a head caretaker, alleged sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

She claimed that inappropriate pictures and a skeleton with male genitalia in the caretakers' lunchroom created a poisoned work environment, and that she was harassed by a Vice-Principal regarding school cleanliness.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent took appropriate and sufficient action to address the inappropriate materials, and that the Vice-Principal's complaints about cleanliness were not based on the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also found no failure to accommodate the applicant's request for a transfer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same termination.

The respondent agreed with the deferral, the union took no position, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, noting the considerable factual overlap between the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process involving the same parties and subject matter.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent made submissions, and the applicant's union took no position.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement of an earlier human rights complaint.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the Application.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the Application.