Mona Staples

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer modified a non-bargaining unit position such that it should be included in the bargaining unit, and failed to notify the Union of the changes.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely and barred by the doctrine of laches, arguing the Union knew of a compensation review three years prior.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the Union was not informed of substantive job duty changes and therefore could not have acquiesced.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator held that the failure to remit union dues for an allegedly improperly excluded position constitutes a continuing grievance, making it timely.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational respondent and five personal respondents.

The organizational respondent requested to defer the application pending the completion of a related union grievance and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the grievance and the application.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud criteria, as the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability and there were no allegations of individual harassment.

The applicant, who had a drug addiction, was terminated from his employment with the corporate respondent for violating a Last Chance Agreement.

His union grieved the termination, but a labour arbitrator upheld the discharge and found no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination by both the employer and the union.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the labour arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the union's alleged failure to properly represent the applicant was not linked to a Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability more than a year after the last alleged incident.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because his union representative advised him he could not file a human rights application while his grievance was ongoing.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the union representative, who denied giving such advice.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Registered Practical Nurse, resigned in lieu of termination after admitting to stealing and ingesting a patient's narcotic medication.

She filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability, specifically her addiction to alcohol.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that her misconduct was causally related to her alcohol addiction or that her judgment was impaired at the time of the theft.

The application was dismissed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1287 filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Union sought to intervene as an interested party to address issues of remedy and matters impacting the collective agreement.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response opposing the request, and the Union demonstrated an interest in the outcome, the Tribunal granted the request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal addressed three preliminary requests.

First, the applicant's initial request to defer the application pending a grievance process was denied because the grievance process had concluded.

Second, the Union's request to intervene was denied because it was already named as a respondent and thus had full party standing.

Third, the City's request for further particulars was resolved as the applicant provided sufficient information, and the City was directed to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed a grievance on behalf of the applicant concerning the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The Tribunal also considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her former employer declined to rehire her for 10 hours a week at the request of the WSIB, nearly three years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to her 2009 termination and earlier events due to an unexplained delay in filing.

The Tribunal also summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the 2012 failure to rehire, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant had no right to return to her former job and the employer's refusal to create a new position for a former employee did not amount to discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application against the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The union subsequently filed a request to intervene in the ongoing application against the employer.

The applicant opposed the request, noting a pending duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that the union was an important part of the factual matrix regarding accommodation attempts and had a significant interest in the matter given the overlapping issues before the Labour Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the union's conduct, including its refusal to pursue a grievance on her behalf, to her disability.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted as its interests were at stake.

The applicant requested to defer the application indefinitely for personal reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding no other proceeding was dealing with the matter and it would not delay the process indefinitely.