Marilee Marcotte

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent university displayed her failed first-year law school marks on her transcript.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent seeking similar relief, including an injunction.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action was commenced before the application and had not been withdrawn.

The Tribunal also found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1), as the ongoing display of marks constituted a continuing effect rather than a continuing violation.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union applied for a review of a Review Officer's order directing the implementation of a pay equity plan using the proportional value method retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The union argued the parties had agreed to a Combined Method (job-to-job and proportional value) and that the Pay Equity Act required it.

The Tribunal found no factual agreement to use the Combined Method and held that the Act did not compel its use since pay equity had already been achieved under the original plan.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a grievance settlement.

The applicant had been terminated and his union signed minutes of settlement with the employer, but the applicant refused to sign them and did not accept the negotiated funds.

The Tribunal held that a union-employer settlement over the objection of the applicant does not mean the disputed termination was appropriately dealt with within the meaning of s. 45.1.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court order that modified a motion judge's order regarding her transportation and accommodation costs for travelling to Windsor.

The Court of Appeal refused to admit fresh evidence as it related to issues not in play.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Divisional Court's modification, which appropriately established a mechanism for judicial review of the appellant's expenses rather than leaving them open-ended.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to not deal with her complaint against the University of Windsor.

The applicant alleged that the university's policy of keeping her failed first-year marks on her transcript was discriminatory.

The Commission dismissed the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision reasonable and holding that the ongoing presence of the marks on the transcript constituted continuing effects of a past act, not a continuing contravention of the Code.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Toronto against the university regarding her academic transcript.

The defendants successfully moved to transfer the action to Windsor, but the motion judge imposed a condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's travel expenses 'in any event of the cause' due to her impecuniosity.

The defendants appealed the condition and the costs order, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the transfer.

The Divisional Court upheld the transfer, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court modified the condition to prevent fettering the discretion of the trial judge regarding costs, and remitted the issue of the motion's costs back to the motion judge as no submissions had been heard.

The plaintiff and defendants both sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that transferred the proceeding from Toronto to Windsor on the condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's travel and accommodation expenses in any event of the cause.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to both parties, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of imposing such a financial condition on a change of venue order.

Leave was also granted on the issue of costs, as the motion judge had not afforded the parties an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a jurisdictional dispute application concerning the assignment of certain HVAC maintenance and repair work to the Operating Engineers rather than the Plumbers.

The Board evaluated the competing claims using established criteria, including employer preference, past practice, and the collective agreement.

The Board determined that the replacement of liquid heating valves requiring system shutdown should have been assigned to a composite crew of Plumbers and Operating Engineers.

The installation of an eye wash stand was declared Plumbers' work.

However, the shutdown and relocation of heating components was found to be properly assigned to the Operating Engineers.

The complainants, a man of Arab ancestry and a woman from Iran, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and sex after they were denied permanent lab analyst positions at the respondent's chemical plant.

The adjudicator found that the male complainant was discriminatorily excluded from the interview process despite having superior qualifications to the successful white male candidates.

The adjudicator also found that the female complainant's work performance was unfairly assessed due to her gender and race, and that she was subjected to a poisoned work environment characterized by the display of pornography and a male-dominated culture.

The complaints were upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages for mental anguish and injury to dignity.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging intimidation and the retaliatory layoff of a key union supporter during an organizing drive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by interrogating and threatening one employee and abruptly laying off another upon discovering the union's presence.

Concluding that the employer's swift and severe actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board granted certification under section 9.2 of the Act.