Samantha Lamb

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her employment and termination.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already addressed in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the prior arbitration decision dealt with the same facts, applied the Code, and awarded general damages for the human rights allegations.

Applying the principles from Figliola and Penner, the Tribunal concluded the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and dismissed the application.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.

The applicant, a bus driver for OC Transpo, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his attempts to secure accommodation through the City of Ottawa's priority placement program.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking and its labour relations are governed by federal legislation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rights to priority placement were derived from his collective agreement and his ongoing status as an OC Transpo employee.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment based on age and disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been resolved through a grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve grievances that formed the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and re-litigation of issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Ottawa, relating to his placement on a Priority Placement Program after being employed as a bus driver with OC Transpo.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing OC Transpo is a federally-regulated enterprise.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and document production.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent employer.

The applicant's bargaining agent requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted as its interests were engaged.

The union also sought directions regarding responding to allegations, claiming privilege over its communications with the applicant.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of privilege to the upcoming preliminary hearing, noting it was unclear if the allegations were relevant to the preliminary issues.