Patrick Gannon

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to waiting for his union to take action and being unaware of the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of another process and ignorance of rights did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated while she was on pregnancy and parental leave.

She also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA complaint.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal found that the circumstances giving rise to both proceedings were the same, creating a risk of concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the ESA proceeding is concluded or abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, place of origin, and disability.

He claimed he experienced harassment, was denied leave, received false performance assessments, was not properly accommodated upon returning from medical leave, and was ultimately terminated because of his age and disability.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of harassment or discriminatory performance assessments.

The Tribunal also found that the employer reasonably accommodated the complainant upon his return to work by offering a temporary assignment that met his needs.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination was part of a legitimate workforce reduction based on seniority, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the allegations were within its jurisdiction and whether the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding record of offences and reprisal did not fall within the meaning of the Code.

While some allegations could constitute discrimination on the basis of disability, they occurred outside the one-year time limit.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by acting in bad faith and arbitrarily when it clarified the terms of a memorandum of settlement following a plant closure.

The settlement provided options for laid-off employees, including severance or filling vacancies created by attrition.

The applicant argued he should have been allowed to bump into the hospital bargaining unit based on seniority.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union misled its members or acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in interpreting the settlement or refusing to file a grievance.