Michael Hancock

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination pending the resolution of a union grievance and WSIB claims.

The respondent supported deferral, arguing the grievance overlapped with the application.

The applicant and the union opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found no substantial overlap, as the grievance related to the applicant's termination, while the application concerned harassment prior to termination.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered the respondent to file a response.

The union filed grievances alleging excessive discipline and a failure to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike out aspects of the union's claims and limit evidence regarding prior incidents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that evidence of matters already determined by the Board or settled would not be entertained to avoid re-litigation.

However, evidence regarding a 2010 incident was permitted as it fell within the generally accepted three-year rule for establishing a course of harassing or discriminatory conduct.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested further particulars from the Union.

After hearing submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the further particulars requested by the Employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that a union grievance settlement had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing.

The applicant was permitted to withdraw her application against the union without conditions.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, finding that because the applicant did not sign or agree to the grievance settlement, it did not appropriately deal with the substance of her application.

The Tribunal also found the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure of meeting notes from the respondents.

The Tribunal had previously directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for documents as premature, noting that the timelines for disclosure under Rules 16 and 17 do not commence until a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing is issued for a hearing on the merits, which had not yet occurred.

The applicant, a black employee, alleged that the owner of the respondent company made two derogatory and racist comments to him during his employment.

The respondent denied making the comments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and consistent, while the respondent's evidence was evasive and contradictory.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent made the discriminatory comments, which included racial slurs and stereotyping.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, a manager, his union, and union counsel, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal at a preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer and manager under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding, despite the applicant's withdrawal from that process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union and its counsel, finding the allegations related to the union's representation and collective agreement administration, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and do not establish a prima facie violation of the Code.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, that it represented employees of the responding party, Borden Cold Storage Limited, following the sale of a warehouse facility by J. M. Schneider Inc. The union argued that the transaction constituted a sale of part of a business, thereby transferring bargaining rights.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a sale of idle assets, specifically an empty and derelict warehouse, rather than the transfer of a functional economic vehicle or operational entity.

The purchaser created a new third-party commercial enterprise from the ground up.

Consequently, the Board concluded there was no sale of a business within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.