Margaret Szilassy

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent United Church of Canada requested a deferral pending a related internal proceeding, which the Tribunal denied because the internal proceeding was already complete.

The respondent London Conference requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request, finding that complex legal issues and factual disputes required a full evidentiary record.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment in employment by the respondent municipality and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the serious allegations of sexual harassment from 2010 did not form a series of incidents with later allegations of workplace differences, and were therefore out of time.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay.

Most of the remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a link between the workplace conflicts and her gender.

However, a few specific allegations against two individual respondents were allowed to proceed, and those individuals remained as parties.

The applicant filed requests for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her 11 human rights applications after she failed to participate in a summary hearing.

She argued that she had to attend the hospital emergency department on the day of the hearing and provided a medical note.

The Tribunal found the medical note insufficient as it did not explain why she was unable to participate or indicate she was incapacitated.

Given the applicant's history of failing to comply with Tribunal directions regarding her prior adjournment requests, the Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship due to the employer's application of ITAR regulations, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on procedural matters.

The Tribunal limited the intervening Union's participation to written and oral submissions, denying its request to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses to avoid undue delay and repetition.

The Tribunal permitted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene regarding Charter issues.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that extrinsic evidence from the applicant's former counsel regarding the interpretation of a prior Minutes of Settlement and Release was inadmissible, as the language of the release was clear and unambiguous.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment by her employer and failure to investigate by her union between 2004 and 2007, as well as a harassing voicemail received in February 2009.

The respondents requested dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found that the gap of more than one year between 2007 and 2009 disrupted any 'series of incidents.' Furthermore, the applicant's medical evidence did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application in a timely manner, given her participation in other complex activities during that period.

The 2004-2007 allegations against both respondents were dismissed as untimely.

However, the timely 2009 voicemail allegation against the employer was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed 11 human rights applications against various respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a consolidated summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide the request and medical documentation to all respondents.

The adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to call into the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed all applications as abandoned, emphasizing the obligation of parties to respect the Tribunal's process and comply with its rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and citizenship, arising from the respondent's application of ITAR regulations which restricted his access to controlled goods.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to strike the applicant's Notice of Constitutional Question at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, with the scope to be determined, and granted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association limited intervenor status to address whether the application of ITAR constitutes discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also set timelines for responding to a request for production and for submissions regarding a proposed witness.

The applicant alleged that his employer, Ford Motor Company of Canada, terminated his employment as a reprisal for taking time off to care for his terminally ill wife, claiming a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The employer maintained that the applicant's employment was terminated because he failed to return to work after exhausting his Family Medical Leave and remained absent without authorization or communication.

The Tribunal found that the employer had accommodated the applicant's requests for time off and that the termination was a result of his unauthorized absence, not a reprisal for claiming Code-protected rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and race, claiming she was treated unfairly and terminated during her probationary period for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's perceptions of discrimination were based on ambiguous events and that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, including performance issues and an incident where she was unable to work due to crying.

The application was dismissed.

The responding employers requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed their motion to dismiss the union's related employer and sale of business applications for post-application delay.

The request was based on the union's failure to disclose a settlement agreement with certain responding parties, which the employers characterized as akin to a 'Mary Carter agreement'.

The Board found that while the agreement should have been disclosed, its existence would not have affected the Board's earlier decision regarding post-application delay.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit structure for the Upper Canada District School Board following restructuring under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board ruled that there should be two bargaining units: one for professional student services personnel (PSSP) and one 'all employee' bargaining unit, rejecting a proposal for four separate units.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the bargaining unit descriptions and the process for a representation vote.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of his discharge grievance and arbitration.

The company and union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay, as it was filed 9.5 months after the arbitration hearing and years after the initial grievance steps.

The Board found the complainant lacked credibility and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Given the prejudice inherent in the passage of time and the complainant's representation by counsel during the relevant period, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the merits and dismissed the complaint.

The Association of Allied Health Professionals applied for certification to represent paramedical employees of the Perth District Health Unit.

The employer and the intervener (CUPE) argued that a recent agreement between them to include the disputed classifications in CUPE's existing bargaining unit acted as a bar to the application.

The Board found that the agreement, which arose in the context of a section 106(2) application, did not have retroactive effect and could not bar the certification application.

The Board determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, directed that a certificate issue.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to assist him in criminal proceedings and by its handling of his discharge grievance, including agreeing to admit a criminal trial transcript at arbitration.

The employer and union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the complaint against the employer, as section 68 applies only to trade unions.

The Board also dismissed the allegations regarding the criminal proceedings, finding the duty of fair representation does not extend beyond the scope of the union's statutory authority as exclusive bargaining agent.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the allegations concerning the union's handling of the grievance prior to arbitration and its agreement to admit the transcript, allowing those matters to proceed.

The complainant brought preliminary motions requesting that the Ontario Labour Relations Board produce an official transcript of the proceedings, or alternatively, that the complainant's representative be permitted to tape record the hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion for an official transcript, finding no requirement under the Charter or common law natural justice to maintain a verbatim record, and declining to exercise its discretion to do so due to concerns over cost, delay, and formality.

However, the Board granted the request to tape record the proceedings, provided it is done unobtrusively and solely for the purpose of supplementing handwritten notes, not as an official record.