Michael Kennedy

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement regarding the same facts.

The applicant argued she should not be bound by the release because she did not understand what she was signing due to her mental state and a misunderstanding of its terms.

The Tribunal found the applicant was capable of understanding the release and had chosen to sign it to accept an early retirement offer.

The Tribunal held that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who required dialysis for a kidney condition, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing shift changes and ultimately terminating his employment.

He also alleged the union failed to properly represent him.

The applicant withdrew the application against the union during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding insufficient evidence that shift changes were refused for disability-related reasons.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was based on a series of bona fide misconduct incidents and was not a pretext for disability discrimination.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

The employer and union brought requests for early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the employer's request to dismiss allegations older than one year, finding they formed a series of incidents culminating in the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the complaint against the union regarding its handling of the termination grievance under section 45.1, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, as the OLRB had not addressed the discrimination issue, though the applicant was barred from re-litigating the OLRB's factual findings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union regarding a May 2006 accommodation request due to unexplained delay.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by encouraging him to resign in July 1999.

The application was filed almost two years later, in June 2001.

The applicant argued the delay was due to depression and financial constraints.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, finding that a delay of almost two years was unjustified, not adequately explained by the applicant's medical or financial circumstances, and highly prejudicial to the union and the employer.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.

In this interim decision on preliminary matters, the Adjudicator ruled on several motions regarding document disclosure, witness attendance, and the admissibility of medical certificates.

The Respondents' motions to compel the attendance of two physicians and to require disclosure of the Complainant's complete medical files were denied.

Five documents, including medical certificates and internal correspondence, were ruled admissible.

The Adjudicator also addressed procedural matters concerning notice of the Respondents' case and potential Charter arguments.