William Anderson

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application after the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The request was filed past the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents opposed the re-activation due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's representative, a counsellor with no legal training, provided a reasonable explanation for the short delay.

Finding no significant prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the remaining respondents to file their responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Orangeville Police Association requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting the union's significant interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of outstanding Police Services Act charges against the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication, finding a significant factual overlap between the allegations of reprisal and the subject matter of the Police Services Act charges.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and accent after being transferred at the request of the LCBO.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a party but added the applicant's employer, G4S, as a respondent.

The Tribunal also dismissed the LCBO's requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and as an abuse of process, finding that the broad interpretation of employment could encompass the relationship between the applicant and the LCBO.

The respondent in a sexual harassment complaint brought a motion for further production of the complainant's business and medical records.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the production of the complainant's business records, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of damages and mitigation, with their probative value outweighing privacy concerns.

However, the Board declined to order the production of the complainant's pre-existing medical and psychiatric records, finding them not arguably relevant and noting that assuming a person with a psychiatric history is less credible would be highly prejudicial and stereotypical.

The applicant, a union member with a physical disability, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance after he was laid off.

The applicant and the union had an informal arrangement to accommodate his disability by referring him to supervisory roles.

The employer laid off the applicant because the carpenters he was supervising were also laid off, and he could not perform the physical duties of a working foreman.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in assessing the situation as a legitimate layoff and refusing to file a grievance.