Margot Blight

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that excluded temporary teachers (those without Ontario College of Teachers membership) from the occasional teachers' bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not breach procedural fairness, as the parties were invited to make submissions on the determinative issue.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, requiring occasional teachers to be on the board's roster to be included in the bargaining unit, was reasonable.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought requests for the production of documents and for anonymization, a publication ban, and a sealing order.

The Tribunal granted the production request in part, ordering the respondent to produce one arguably relevant email regarding a vacation policy.

The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization and publication bans, finding that the applicant's depression and anxiety did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The Tribunal also issued directions limiting the applicant's voluminous communications with the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance filed by the intervenor on behalf of the applicant.

The respondent and intervenor supported deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the facts or law.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add the grounds of marital status and association with a person with a disability.

The respondent consented to the amendments.

Applying the test for amendments, the Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent given the consent, the nature of the amendments, and the timing relative to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after the respondent school board refused to return him to work.

The applicant repeatedly refused to comply with a Tribunal order to produce medical records relevant to his fitness to return to work.

A related grievance arbitration had previously been dismissed as an abuse of process for the same reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to the applicant's ongoing refusal to produce the ordered documents, and alternatively under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance arbitration.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's airline tickets and travel documents.

The applicant had been suspended for refusing to provide these documents to his employer to support his claim that he changed his flight due to illness.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the respondents' defence regarding the reasonableness of the suspension.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within 7 days.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

Although the original grievance was settled, the intervenor union had filed another grievance on the applicant's behalf regarding an unpaid suspension.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings continued to overlap significantly and the arbitration was already well advanced.

The request to reactivate the application was denied and the deferral was continued.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievances.

The arbitrator rendered a final decision on the grievances, and the respondent consented to the reactivation request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed that it continue to be processed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer the application because a grievance under a collective agreement was ongoing based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that it was most fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of three related union grievances.

Finding that the grievances addressed similar facts and issues and were still ongoing, the Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its usual practice.

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

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

The applicant's request for particulars was denied, while his request to amend the application to add a claim for monetary compensation was granted.

The union's request to intervene was granted over the applicant's objections, as the union had a requisite interest in the matter.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of concurrent grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate and amend his human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant acknowledged that the grievance proceeding was ongoing and an arbitration hearing was scheduled for late summer 2012.

The respondents opposed the reactivation but consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate because the grievance proceeding had not concluded, in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request to amend will be considered if and when the Application is properly reactivated.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 15-year-old son from all schools within the board.

The student had brought a BB gun to school, kept it in his locker, and used it to threaten another student in class.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the statutory criteria for expulsion and mitigating factors.

The Board found that the student possessed a weapon at school, which significantly disrupted the school climate, and that no mitigating factors lessened the severity of the conduct.

The expulsion from all board schools was upheld.

The complainant, a group insurance underwriter, alleged that she was denied permanent employment and subsequently discharged because of her sexual orientation.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the initial delay in offering full-time employment could not be directly attributed to the respondents due to the death of the responsible manager, the decision to terminate her employment was tainted by discrimination.

Although the employer's requirement to transfer the complainant's partner to avoid a conflict of interest was reasonable, the precipitous withdrawal of the job offer and immediate discharge were influenced by the complainant's open homosexuality and the homophobic attitudes of senior management.

The respondents were ordered to pay special and general damages.