Suzanne M. Porter

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application against the Windsor Police Services Board to include new allegations of gender discrimination and reprisal regarding a fall 2016 promotional process.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegations were closely related to the existing ones and that the reprisal claims required a hearing of evidence to determine intent.

During the hearing of a human rights application, the applicant sought to amend her claim to include allegations that she was denied a performance review in 2014 and a bonus paid in 2015, arguing that late disclosure by the respondent prejudiced her ability to assess the issues earlier.

The respondent objected, claiming prejudice because it had not called witnesses to address these specific claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as it had notice that wages and bonuses were at issue, and the respondent's own changing position on bonuses contributed to the applicant's lack of clarity.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging gender discrimination and reprisal regarding the promotional process within the Windsor Police Service.

The respondents sought to dismiss the second application as an abuse of process, dismiss certain allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, and declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the second application or declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding her conduct consistent with a self-represented litigant navigating complex procedures.

Instead, the Tribunal consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal also struck allegations of racial discrimination for lack of standing but allowed the reprisal and age discrimination allegations to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued her former law firm for wrongful dismissal, asserting she was an employee.

The defendant firm contended she was a partner.

The court applied the "substance over form" principle to determine the true nature of the relationship, examining factors such as participation in firm management, access to financial information, tax filings, and benefits.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was a partner, not an employee, and therefore dismissed her claim for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders for the production of documents and to amend her application to add the ground of disability and update her requested remedies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents, which related to wage increases, bonuses, and human resources policies, to be arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on pregnancy.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to bring the requested documents to the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

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

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application, arguing that the corporate respondent, a scrap metal recycling and logistics business, is a federally-regulated undertaking because it regularly transports goods to the United States.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent operated an international transportation undertaking and that the applicant's duties were an integral part of it.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The Greater Essex County District School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruling.

The OLRB found that the school board's construction management activities fell within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that receiving compensation for these activities constituted operating a business.

The OLRB also found the school board and other property owners were 'unrelated persons' under the 'non-construction employer' definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the OLRB's decision reasonable and its reasons sufficient.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled that he had jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration, despite the mandatory 14-day time limit in the collective agreement having expired.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, holding that once the time limit expired, the grievance was deemed settled and there was nothing left to refer to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the OLRB's interpretation of s. 133 was unreasonable and that the OLRB cannot ignore the express mandatory timelines in a collective agreement.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal regarding his termination in 2003.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay, as they were filed in April 2007, more than three years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified by ongoing collusion between the employer and the union during subsequent grievance and duty of fair representation proceedings.

The Tribunal found no factual basis for the collusion argument and concluded that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the inordinate delay.

The applications were dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights applications for delay.

He argued he was denied natural justice when the Tribunal proceeded with the initial hearing despite his request for an adjournment due to his representative's sudden illness.

The Tribunal found that the respondents should have been aware the applicant was represented, and the refusal to grant the adjournment prevented the representative from attending.

Concluding there was a denial of natural justice that outweighed the public interest in finality, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, set aside the previous decision, and ordered a new hearing on the preliminary issues.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal against his former employer, several individuals, and his union, nearly four years after his employment was terminated.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the union additionally argued the matter had been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith and that the passage of time would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The applications were dismissed for delay.