Linda Vannucci-Santini

During an ongoing hearing, the responding party sought to introduce the applicant's subpoenaed medical records, which the applicant opposed on the basis of relevance.

The applicant had previously sought to rely on summary medical reports without calling the physicians to testify.

The Board held that the subpoenaed medical records were relevant since the applicant intended to rely on medical evidence.

The Board ruled that the onus of calling the physicians rested with the applicant, and if she chose not to call them but still relied on the reports, the responding party would be entitled to rely on the subpoenaed records in response.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

The Board held a hearing to determine the compensation owed to the complainant following a finding that she was unlawfully discharged for a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer argued that compensation should be reduced due to the complainant's failure to mitigate damages, her delay in filing the complaint, and her receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages and declined to deduct unemployment insurance benefits from the award.

However, the Board reduced the compensation period by 16 weeks due to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,242.18 in compensation and interest.

The complainant alleged she was constructively dismissed and penalized under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Smoking in the Workplace Act after raising concerns about second-hand smoke in the workplace.

The employer had a smoking policy in place and attempted to accommodate her, but concluded a completely smoke-free area was not possible.

The Board found that the complainant voluntarily resigned and did not attempt to rescind her resignation, dismissing the complaint.

A dissenting board member would have found constructive dismissal based on the employer's failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

The complainant, a wood-working shop employee, was laid off on his first day back from a Workers' Compensation absence.

Prior to his lay-off, he had repeatedly raised health and safety concerns regarding the shop's condition, including the lack of safety guards and a defective dust collector door that had previously injured him.

On the day of his lay-off, he refused to work due to these unsafe conditions and was subsequently terminated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the lay-off was untainted by the complainant's exercise of his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board ordered the complainant reinstated with compensation.

The complainant was discharged from her employment at a car dealership shortly after refusing to perform a paint inventory due to noxious fumes.

The employer claimed the discharge was solely due to her poor performance, which had been a concern for months.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant had exercised her right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Applying the reverse onus, the Board concluded the employer failed to prove that the discharge was entirely unrelated to the work refusal, noting the suspicious timing and the employer's trivialization of her health concerns.

The complaint was allowed.