Lorenzo Lisi

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include remedies for maintaining seniority and compensation for wage loss.

The respondent opposed the amendment on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the respondent's request for medical records and the intervenor's request to exclude certain recordings from evidence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through the union's grievance procedure.

The applicant's union had previously advised him that it would not pursue his grievances to arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a union's internal grievance procedure does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1, as it does not involve a neutral third party applying an objective legal standard.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his medical leave and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed or deferred because a grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues was scheduled.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and deferral avoids conflicting determinations.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding the cause of her workplace injuries.

The respondent also requested particulars regarding the applicant's alleged loss of benefit coverage.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned the cause of the injury, which is irrelevant to the employer's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also denied the request for particulars, noting they related exclusively to remedy and were not necessary for the respondent to file a full response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early production of documents to refute the respondents' claim of accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding the applicant failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify early production under Rule 16.

The applicant was ordered to file his Reply, and the matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application against her employer and co-workers due to delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the Interim Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically failure to accommodate, reduction in hourly rate, and assignment of work exceeding physical restrictions.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the issues before the WSIB (the cause of the injury) did not sufficiently overlap with the human rights issues (the duty to accommodate regardless of cause).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by co-workers in 2009, discriminatory comments by a manager in 2010, and a false complaint leading to her removal from a work site.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2009 as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith despite the applicant's claims of mental health issues.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against several individual respondents and the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was allowed to proceed only against the employer and one manager regarding the 2010 discriminatory comments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his termination of employment.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and that he misunderstood its terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant received his full severance benefits and did not raise any concerns until after the severance period expired.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The intervenor requested an adjournment fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled consultation due to counsel's illness.

The applicant requested costs if the adjournment was granted, noting it was the third adjournment in two months.

The Board granted the adjournment but denied the request for costs, consistent with its jurisprudence.

A new date was set for the consultation.

The applicant filed a termination application and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached an agreement to resolve the outstanding issues.

The Board ordered that the previous representation vote be declared a nullity and the ballots destroyed.

A fresh representation vote was ordered to determine if the employees wish to continue to be represented by the union.

The Board also set out the consequences of the vote depending on the outcome, as agreed by the parties.

In a termination application and related unfair labour practice complaint, the union sought to introduce additional particulars concerning events that occurred after the termination application was filed, specifically the ratification of a renewal collective agreement.

The employer objected to the admission of these particulars on the basis of relevance.

The Board held that the particulars were irrelevant because the determination of whether the termination application was employer-initiated under s. 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 concerns facts existing on or before the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's arguments that the ratification vote rendered the termination application moot or warranted a fresh representation vote, noting that a renewal collective agreement is contingent upon the outcome of a timely termination application.

The particulars were struck from the pleadings.

The Board heard preliminary matters regarding a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board ordered the applications consolidated as they involved common evidence.

The Board allowed the applicant to amend the name of the responding party in the termination application under section 112 of the Act, finding the error was a bona fide mistake.

Finally, the Board determined the order of proceeding, directing the unions to adduce evidence first, as the core factual allegations regarding employer interference were not acknowledged by the employer and the unions' witnesses were best positioned to establish the factual foundation.

The applicant, a social worker, alleged she was terminated and subjected to pre-termination reprisals by her employer, a hospital, after complaining of sexual harassment by her supervisor.

The hospital argued the termination was strictly due to financial restructuring and that sexual harassment falls outside the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the reprisal complaint, as the applicant genuinely believed the harassment was a workplace hazard.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint on the merits, finding the termination was a bona fide layoff driven by budget cuts and that the alleged pre-termination incidents did not constitute penalties or reprisals.

The union applied for certification.

Two employees alleged they were intimidated and coerced by union organizers into signing membership cards, and requested that the Board dismiss the application.

The Board held a hearing and found that the statements made by the organizers did not amount to intimidation or coercion, but rather constituted typical social pressure and salesmanship during an organizing drive.

The Board concluded that the employees had simply changed their minds about supporting the union after signing the cards.

As the union filed membership evidence on behalf of over 55% of the employees, the Board dismissed the allegations and certified the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of the responding party's employees.

The central issue was whether the geographic scope of the bargaining unit should be described by reference to the municipality (City of London) or restricted to the specific street address where the employer currently provided cleaning services.

The employer argued that section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act, which provides successor rights in the building services industry, alleviated the policy concerns underlying the Board's preference for municipal-wide certificates.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 64.2 did not address all concerns, such as protecting employees' preference for a collective bargaining relationship with their specific employer if the employer relocated operations.

The Board granted a municipal-wide certificate and certified the applicant.