Melanie Dawn McNaught

The defendants, Manulife Financial and Accenture Inc., brought a motion to declare the plaintiff a person under disability for the purpose of the action and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, opposed the motion, asserting his capacity to manage the litigation.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's medical records, his own statements regarding his mental health, and his litigation conduct, which included refusing disability benefit payments based on conspiracy theories and an inability to understand legal implications.

The court found the plaintiff to be mentally incapable with respect to the issues in the litigation and appointed the PGT as his litigation guardian, emphasizing that this finding was limited to his litigation capacity and not a general finding of incapacity.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding C&W Services as a respondent and adding services and contracts as a social area.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found it appropriate to add C&W Services, as the conduct of its employee was central to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the social area of goods, services and facilities, but denied the request to add contracts as there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and C&W Services.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine whether the litigation guardian should be removed.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer on the basis of race, colour, marital status, family status, and record of offences.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations were timely and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the incidents from 2013 were untimely, did not form a series of incidents with the 2015 allegations, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The timely 2015 allegations of reprisal were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to her protected grounds or her prior human rights complaint.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that an adjournment was necessary to obtain the union file and that the respondent should be required to file a full Response on the merits.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the applicant to obtain information from the union, but held that a full Response was not required and that a one-day hearing remained appropriate.

The applicant, a high school student with a disability, filed two applications against the respondent school board and several of its employees.

The first application alleged a breach of a 2009 settlement agreement regarding the transfer of the applicant's student record and the destruction of documents.

The second application alleged discrimination based on disability for the respondent's refusal to pay transportation costs to a school in another board and its failure to prepare a transition plan.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed both applications.

The breach of settlement allegations were dismissed as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The discrimination allegations were dismissed as an abuse of process and having no reasonable prospect of success, given that the applicant had not attended any of the respondent's schools since 2009.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association membership based on race, disability, age, record of offence, and reprisal.

At the hearing, the applicant was emotionally overwrought and ultimately declined to testify or be cross-examined.

Following the testimony of the applicant's daughter and husband, the respondents argued that a prima facie case had not been established.

The applicant's representative conceded this point, and the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The moving parties sought dismissal of a civil action brought by a former employee claiming damages relating to unpaid short‑term disability benefits and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

The court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation and administration of a collective agreement governing employment benefits.

Under the Labour Relations Act, such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.

The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, the claim was statute‑barred because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known by February 2009 that the benefits would not be paid, yet did not commence the action until June 2011.

The action was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

The applicant, a former resident of a women's shelter, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin regarding various incidents at the shelter, including pressure to change her children's school, denial of supplies, comments about her baby, and refusal of entry after she moved out.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the respondent's actions and the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend her application to add a reprisal claim, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed.

The individual respondent, a teacher, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to add the School Board as a respondent and to remove herself as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments.

The School Board consented to being added and acknowledged the teacher was acting in the course of her employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the School Board and removing the individual teacher as a respondent, noting the School Board's capacity to respond to the monetary remedy sought.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.

Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Labour Arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement provision on protective clothing.

The employer required metatarsal safety boots, which the union argued constituted an 'exceptional' working condition obligating the employer to provide them.

The Arbitrator found the requirement was merely an enhanced safety policy, not an exceptional working condition.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court held that the Arbitrator's contextual interpretation fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Canada Post sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to change the cut-off date for calculating damages in a prior award, arguing the arbitrator was functus officio.

The arbitrator had initially set the date without hearing submissions, leading to a mistaken belief of facts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's initial failure to allow submissions amounted to a denial of natural justice.

Therefore, the arbitrator had the power and duty to revisit the issue and correct the error, falling within a recognized exception to the functus officio doctrine.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.

The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.