Lia Chiarotto

The respondents requested an order removing two personal respondents as parties and an order for particulars regarding various allegations in the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of the two personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars for several general allegations of discrimination and harassment, finding that the respondents were entitled to further details to fully understand the allegations and prepare their case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The applicant argued she did not receive notice because she relied on email communication.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that notice was sent by regular mail to the address provided by the applicant, was not returned as undeliverable, and the applicant had previously requested correspondence be sent to that mailing address.

The applicant, a preferred temporary employee with a disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by failing to award him a full-time forklift position, removing a modified work assignment, delaying information to the WSIB, and failing to provide timely ROEs and T4s.

The Tribunal found that the payroll and WSIB delays were due to administrative issues and the seasonal nature of the work, not discrimination.

The modified work assignment ended due to a seasonal reduction in product demand.

Regarding the forklift position, the Tribunal found that the successful candidate had more experience and that the applicant could not perform the essential lifting duties of the role due to his medical restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing for final closing submissions because the articling student who had carriage of the file left the firm and no other lawyers were available.

The respondent objected, arguing there were no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant had been diligent in retaining legal representation and should not be prejudiced by his representative's departure from the firm.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on age, disability, and place of origin.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the corporate respondent seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental distress based on the same factual circumstances.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application covered the same subject matter and sought remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The application was dismissed as barred by s. 34(11).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a 1994 layoff that reduced his pension entitlement.

The respondent requested early dismissal due to delay and a signed release.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith due to language barriers, the respondent established substantial prejudice because relevant documents and witnesses from the 1994 restructuring were no longer available.

The application was dismissed under section 34 of the Code.

In a discharge grievance involving allegations that the grievor improperly obtained air miles, the Union sought disclosure of the Employer's cost per reward mile.

The Employer and a third party, Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc., argued the information was highly confidential.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to disclose the information to the Union, subject to a condition that it only be used for the arbitration proceeding.

The third party subsequently requested that the Union and grievor be required to execute a formal Undertaking with a liquidated damages clause.

The Vice Chair dismissed the third party's request, finding that the previous direction was sufficient to protect the confidential information and consistent with the Board's general approach.

In a pre-hearing conference call regarding an employee's discharge for allegedly obtaining air miles on customer purchases, the Union requested the Employer to disclose its cost for an air mile.

The Employer argued the information was confidential and irrelevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the information arguably relevant and ordered its disclosure, subject to the condition that it only be used for the proceeding.