Michelle Alaine Alton

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying her claim for psychotraumatic disability arising from a 1998 workplace injury.

The WSIAT had found that her depression manifested more than five years after the injury and that the accident was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's decisions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for a back injury following a workplace fall.

The Tribunal had found the fall was not a significant contributing factor to the injury, relying heavily on the applicant's delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting pain.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for uncontradicted medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician and physiotherapist.

The Court granted the application, set aside the decision, and, given the inevitable outcome and lengthy delay, declared the applicant entitled to benefits under s. 13(1) of the WSIA, remitting the matter only for the assessment of those benefits.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The self-represented applicants sought various corrections and additions to the record and transcripts for an upcoming Divisional Court hearing.

The court ordered that agreed-upon changes be deemed made to the transcripts and allowed the applicants' written closing statement and the employer's document compendium to be added to the record.

However, the court denied requests to supplement the transcripts based on memory, to alter the record based on translation objections, or to remove a photograph from the record.

The court also set a timetable for factums and the hearing on the merits.

In a case management endorsement, the court provided procedural directions to a self-represented applicant regarding disputes over the accuracy of transcripts and the Record of Proceedings.

The court ordered the applicant to prepare detailed lists of alleged errors and proposed corrections, and directed the respondents to reply to those lists.

The court noted that the intense case management required by the self-represented applicant's lack of trust in the respondents would inevitably cause delays.

A case management conference was held for an application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

The self-represented applicants' amended notice of application was accepted without further amendment.

The court addressed procedural issues, including the preparation of the Record of Proceedings, the unavailability of video recordings of the WSIAT hearing, and the procedure for introducing fresh evidence.

WSIAT agreed to compile and serve the Record of Proceedings, and a further case management conference was to be scheduled.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that refused to discontinue the respondent worker's Future Economic Loss benefits.

The worker had returned to full-time work 17 years after his injury, but his benefits had been locked-in after the statutory 60-month review window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the legislation and policy directives—that benefits could not be reviewed after 60 months absent specific exceptions—was reasonable and respected the legislative objective of finality.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding the respondent's attendance management process and a comment made by a supervisor in 2009.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2009 allegation for delay, finding it did not form a series of incidents with the later allegations and there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the remainder of the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the evidence showed the respondent accommodated the applicant's established disability and disciplined him only for culpable absences unrelated to his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal against his employer, a co-worker/union steward, and his union.

Following a case management call to address preliminary issues, the Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the grounds of race and vocational association.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent and set deadlines for the union to file a response and for the parties to exchange documents prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The respondent employer requested the removal of an individual respondent, an Occupational Health Nurse, from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal on the conditions that the employer accept vicarious liability for the nurse's actions, that evidence regarding the nurse's actions could still be relied upon, and that human rights training for the nurse could still be sought as a remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the employer is vicariously liable under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code and that the removal would not preclude the applicant's evidentiary or remedial requests.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness during the consultation process and substantive errors in the Board's assessment of the union's investigation into a contracting-out grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice and holding that the Board reasonably concluded the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal, the respondent requested that several paragraphs of the applicant's amended Application be struck for being vague, untimely, or contrary to a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal reviewed the disputed paragraphs, allowing some to remain, striking others that were overly broad or raised for the first time, and ordering the applicant to provide further particulars (such as dates) for the remaining vague allegations.

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural issues in an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended Application to include new allegations related to his suspension and termination, subject to specific parameters to prevent re-litigating previously decided issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also addressed issues regarding the respondent's disclosure of the Application in another proceeding and the applicant's communication with the Tribunal, providing directions on how to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against Jane Finch Community Legal Services and its individual board members.

The applicant brought a request for an order to add Legal Aid Ontario as a respondent, arguing it was the parent organization.

The respondents brought a request to remove the individual board members as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Legal Aid Ontario, finding no allegations that it violated the Code and no employment relationship.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was alleged to be liable for the conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related Ontario Labour Relations Board process.

The applicant withdrew his grievance, concluding the related procedures.

The respondent employer took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they were amenable to mediation.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application after it was held in abeyance pending the outcome of his first application.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation as the final decision in the first application had been issued.

The applicant also requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to investigate his termination and disprove the respondent's allegations of theft.

The Tribunal denied this request, stating that an inquiry is not a mechanism for a party to bolster its position regarding the other party's evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was suspended and dismissed for failing to participate in a cover-up of alleged Code violations.

A concurrent grievance regarding his suspension and termination was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant also had an outstanding duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) involving similar facts and allegations against the union.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the OLRB proceeding.

Given the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, the factual similarity, and the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.