Tom Moutsatsos

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application as out of time, and a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code and there was no evidence the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the test for admission on judicial review.

The Court held there was no denial of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, dismissing the application for judicial review.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent related to his gambling addiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add and remove parties, and a request for anonymization.

The Tribunal removed the Ontario Charitable Gaming Association as a respondent on consent, and declined to add the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation as a respondent, finding it was not a proper party.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization for the interim decision, subject to future review, and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add E&E Seegmiller Limited and Les Coulas as respondents and to amend her Application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that Les Coulas was already named as a personal respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal added E&E Seegmiller Limited as a corporate respondent because it was the employer of Les Coulas.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her Application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The plaintiff, a 48-year-old senior executive, brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer seeking an 18-month notice period and various bonus entitlements.

The court first determined that the plaintiff was an independent contractor during his initial 18-month consulting period, meaning his length of service as an employee was only 19 months.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court found the employer's offer of 6.5 months' notice was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for additional bonuses under various incentive plans, except for a $15,000 SMART bonus.

However, the court allowed the employer an equitable set-off for a $70,830 overpayment, resulting in no further compensation for the plaintiff.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Upon termination of her employment, the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release in exchange for a severance package, which explicitly barred her from bringing a claim under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application could proceed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was given sufficient time to review the documents and did not sign them under duress.

The release was held to be binding, and the application was dismissed.

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

Following the applicant's failure to comply with an interim order to produce relevant medical documentation, the Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the non-compliance and potential consequences.

The applicant failed to attend the conference call hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application for failure to state a prima facie case and failure to disclose documents.

The self-represented applicant explained she misunderstood her production obligations, believing her former counsel or the respondents' insurer had provided the medical documents.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation and declined to dismiss the application for non-compliance, instead ordering the applicant to produce the required documents by a specified date.

The motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case was deferred as premature until the documents were produced.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the employer's Fairness Appeal Program did not apply to his termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the program expressly excludes terminations without cause.

The court held that an employer's underlying concerns regarding performance do not convert a termination without cause into a termination for cause when the employer elects to provide notice or payment in lieu thereof.

No evidence of employer bad faith was found.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union following a transfer of jurisdiction.

The transfer was part of a broader settlement agreement between the two unions to resolve ongoing raiding disputes, conditional upon the applicant demonstrating 40% membership support and winning a Board-supervised representation vote.

The responding employer objected, arguing the application was premature because the transfer of jurisdiction was conditional at the time of filing.

The Board rejected the employer's argument, finding that section 68 allows the Board to conduct representation votes to confirm a successorship claim.

Since the applicant satisfied the conditions and won the representation vote, the Board granted the application and declared the applicant the successor trade union.

The applicants filed duty of fair representation complaints against their union for failing to pursue their grievances to arbitration.

The grievances alleged that the employer improperly denied them the right to bump junior employees in a different classification following a layoff.

The union decided not to pursue the grievances based on a uniform past practice requiring employees to have previously performed a job for the employer to be considered qualified to bump into it.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the union had honestly considered the merits of the grievances and that its decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant brought an application under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ruled on preliminary issues, finding that the facts asserted did not establish a prima facie case against several responding parties, who were subsequently removed as responding parties and listed as interested parties.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing on the condition that it could be brought back on 24 hours' notice if further violations occurred.

The Board issued directions for the filing of amended and new applications.