Michelle Dobranowski

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which was denied.

The respondents also requested the removal of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents and capable of satisfying any remedial order.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of the applicant's employment and all allegations against the union, finding no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a delayed wage increase to continue in the Tribunal process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

After learning the driver's name through a Tribunal order, the applicant sought to add him as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent and the driver opposed the request, arguing the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and found that the driver's alleged conduct was central to the application and remedies could not be awarded against him unless he was a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the driver as a personal respondent and identified his union as an affected party.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of statistical information regarding disabled employees and an amendment to add a claim for $20,000 in general damages.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding the statistical information irrelevant to the narrow issue of whether excluding rear door loading work from spread allowance eligibility is discriminatory.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the damages claim on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of the bus driver's full name in order to add him as a personal respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the driver's identity was arguably relevant to the allegations and necessary for the applicant's intention to add him as a party.

The applicant, a former employee of the Toronto Transit Commission, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The applicant had previously grieved his termination through his union, resulting in a mediated settlement agreement that included a full and final release barring further claims under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the grievance proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under duress and did not understand it due to a language barrier.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant consistently communicated in English and that economic or emotional pressure alone does not vitiate a settlement.

The Tribunal concluded the settlement was valid and binding, and dismissed the application under s. 45.1.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications, adjourn scheduled hearing dates, and defer the matters pending a grievance process.

Finding significant overlap in facts and law and no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal consolidated the applications.

The scheduled hearing dates were adjourned to allow for the exchange of pleadings, and the matters were not deferred as there were no outstanding grievances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding the accommodation of a workplace injury.

In her Reply, the applicant raised new allegations regarding a Community Service position and fluctuating shifts.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to amend its Response to address these new allegations, treating them as an expansion of the Application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the hearing was months away, there was no prejudice to the applicant, and dealing with all accommodation issues in one proceeding would avoid multiplicity.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He claimed the employer failed to accommodate his workplace preferences regarding days off, hours, and location, despite providing work that met his disability-related limitations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed most of the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to provide a perfect solution or meet preferences unrelated to Code needs.

Allegations against the union and claims of reprisal were also dismissed as speculative.

The Tribunal requested further submissions on whether the failure to pay a spread allowance for accommodated work was discriminatory.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached his employment contract by treating him unfairly and arbitrarily in its handling of a subordinate's harassment complaints and grievances against him.

The employer settled the subordinate's grievances by reassigning the complainant without providing him timely notice of the allegations or an opportunity to respond.

The complainant subsequently left the workplace due to the resulting poisoned work environment and stress.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the employer breached its duty of fairness and acted arbitrarily.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost overtime and pay-for-performance, as well as $5,000 in damages for mental distress resulting from the breach of procedural fairness provisions in his employment contract.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were screened out of a job competition for Compliance Officer positions and denied interviews.

The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to properly assess their qualifications and ability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's screening process, which required specific technical knowledge related to mining and mine rehabilitation, was fair and reasonable.

The Board declined to interfere with the employer's assessment of the application materials and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a corrections officer with 20 years of service, was terminated for off-duty conduct involving criminal harassment of his ex-wife, death threats to police, and a physical confrontation with police resulting in charges of assault with a weapon and impaired driving.

He also failed to report his arrests to his employer.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the conduct was off-duty and the grievor suffered from substance abuse issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was egregious, inconsistent with his status as a peace officer, and harmed the employer's reputation.

The Board rejected the grievor's self-diagnosis of addiction and found no objective evidence of rehabilitation, concluding termination was justified.

The union brought a motion for non-suit during a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a corrections officer.

The grievor was terminated for off-duty conduct, including failing to notify the employer of criminal charges, making death threats to police, and engaging in a police chase resulting in charges of impaired driving and assault with a weapon.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine whether the employer had established a prima facie case for dismissal.

The Board concluded that the employer had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for termination.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed, and the case was directed to proceed in the ordinary course.

The grievor, an Environmental Officer, filed a grievance alleging she was denied proper payment for hours she was on-call and available to return to work.

Specifically, she claimed she should have been called out to respond to a reported septic system overflow.

The Spills Action Centre had received the report but determined a Ministry field response was not necessary, instead referring it to the local health unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the agreed statement of facts and relevant procedures, concluding that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Ministry applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the Ministry breached the collective agreement by failing to create and fill a single Probation Officer 3 (PO3) position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference, as a literal interpretation would have led to an unrealistic result with no sensible purpose.

The employer admitted to violating the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement by failing to remove an inmate from the institution within the required timeframe under the 'Threats Against Staff' policy.

The breach was caused by an administrative error, and the grievor suffered no economic loss or undue hardship.

The arbitrator awarded $350 in general damages to reflect the severity of the breach without punishing the employer.

The union filed grievances on behalf of newly hired unclassified General Duty Officers working on the youth side of a detention centre, arguing they should be paid at the Youth Worker (YW) or Correctional Officer 2 (CO2) rate rather than the Correctional Officer 1 (CO1) rate.

The employer argued that CO1 was the appropriate rate based on an underfill policy and that the union was estopped from claiming otherwise.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievors performed the same core duties as classified CO2s and YWs, and met more stringent hiring qualifications than typical COs.

The Board held that YW or CO2 was the equivalent civil service classification and rejected the employer's estoppel argument.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the grievance proceedings because the grievor had an active application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging the Employer contravened a settlement agreement.

The Union did not oppose the adjournment, provided it was without prejudice to its jurisdictional position.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, with conditions that proceedings may resume after the Tribunal's adjudication or if it serves the purposes of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Union brought a grievance regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the Union with written particulars of the facts and documents it intends to rely upon to support its case for just cause dismissal.

The Board directed that failure to comply with the order may result in the Employer being precluded from adducing evidence on matters not particularized.

The grievor, a black unclassified Administrative Support Clerk, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race or colour when he was unsuccessful in job competitions for permanent and temporary positions, and when his temporary employment contract was not renewed.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the evidence regarding the grievor's hiring, his treatment during employment, the conduct of the job competitions, and the reasons for non-renewal.

The Board found that the employer's actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as the grievor's performance in the job competition and the collective agreement rules regarding contract renewals.

The grievances were dismissed.