Paul O’Ryan

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that the employer and union violated the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to reduce the wages of a female-dominated job class.

The employer argued the reduction was a temporary measure to avoid contracting out work and was justified under exceptions in the Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Act prohibits reducing wages of employees who have achieved pay equity, and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the union to contribute to the wage adjustments.

The applicant, an employee with Asperger's syndrome, alleged discrimination by his employer and union regarding requests for medical information and the handling of his return to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding medical information requests, finding them reasonable.

However, the Tribunal found the employer constructively discriminated against the applicant during a return-to-work meeting and upon his return by failing to accommodate his specific communication and sensory needs, including issuing a confusing backdated letter of expectation and denying him a break when he became distressed.

The union was found not liable.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration process.

She argued the arbitration hearing was cancelled without good reason.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was only briefly rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances and that the grievance process was not unduly delayed.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The applicant, a school custodian, alleged discrimination based on sex, creed, and race regarding workplace conflict, scheduling, religious leave, and school inspections.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal confirmed the union's intervenor status over the applicant's objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the religious leave allegation as having no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the school inspection allegations under section 45.1 of the Code because they had been dealt with in a prior grievance.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to include events outside the one-year limitation period.

The allegations regarding workplace conflict and scheduling were permitted to proceed.

The applicant, an attendant employed by the respondent school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after being denied a promotion to Custodian.

He claimed the respondent imposed arbitrary and shifting English language proficiency standards that were not required for the job.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the required Basic Custodian Test due to incomplete and incorrect answers, not solely due to language proficiency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if language requirements were imposed, the applicant provided no evidence linking them to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of systemic discrimination and events predating February 2011.

The respondents argued these amendments were prejudicial and that allegations predating October 2011 were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request to add systemic discrimination and earlier events due to prejudice.

It also dismissed allegations predating June 30, 2011 as having no reasonable prospect of success, since the respondents were unaware of the applicant's disability before then.

The Tribunal found that the July 2011 return to work meeting was not part of a series of incidents and was therefore untimely, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, allegations regarding repeated requests for medical documentation were allowed to proceed as a potential series of incidents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents, videos, and unredacted notes from the employer and the union.

At the hearing, the parties resolved the production issues, with the applicant withdrawing some requests and the respondents agreeing to produce the remaining requested materials.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the agreed-upon documents and set a schedule for written submissions on an outstanding timeliness issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, race, and ethnic origin.

The allegations stemmed from his supervisor's emails regarding his attendance, a written warning for his conduct during a meeting, and the employer's handling of his grievance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the 2012 allegations were timely as part of a series of incidents, the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not establish that he was disadvantaged or that the employer's actions were linked to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a seasonal employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and reprisal by her employer and union regarding her work assignments, alleged workplace harassment, and union representation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because she could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to her sexual orientation or establishing an intention to retaliate for a previous human rights application.

Furthermore, allegations regarding a 2012 work assignment were dismissed for delay as they fell outside the one-year time limit and did not form part of a series of incidents with any timely, viable allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his employer, the City of Cambridge, and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union failed to assist him when the employer discontinued his accommodation, but provided no evidence linking the union's actions to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union for having no reasonable prospect of success, while allowing the application against the employer to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant's union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1483, filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The respondent supported the request, noting the application raised allegations against the union president.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and the potential remedies could impact the union's interests.

The applicant, a custodian, injured her knee and returned to work with a medical restriction to walk short distances only.

The respondent accommodated her by allowing her to take breaks as needed, but failed to formally assess or communicate the restriction to her direct supervisors, leading her to work beyond her restriction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in both the procedural and substantive components of its duty to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the respondent failed to adequately investigate her subsequent internal complaints, finding its response reasonable.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his employment termination.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance arbitration regarding the same facts and issues was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, consistent with its general practice of avoiding concurrent legal proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her union discriminated against her on the basis of disability and reprisal in its handling of her grievance following her termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the union's failure to advance human rights concerns and failure to accommodate her mental state, finding no link to a Code ground and no basis for a failure to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's allegations of reprisal to proceed to a hearing, as she alleged the union threatened reprisal when she advised them she wished to file a human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding advancement and promotion.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted given its representation of the applicant in ongoing related grievances.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its normal practice to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with authority to resolve them.

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

The applicant's bargaining agent, CUPE Local 2926, filed a request to intervene, arguing that the requested remedies, including reinstatement, could impact the collective agreement and the bargaining unit.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its established practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's application absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2713, filed a Request to Intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that the extent of its participation would be determined by the presiding Member at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate leading up to and including her termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a union grievance regarding her discharge, and that the remaining allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely entered into the settlement without duress, making it an abuse of process to litigate the termination.

The Tribunal further held that the pre-termination accommodation allegations were filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary support worker at a group home, alleged her employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting that a resident had been yelled at by a manager.

She also alleged the respondent reprised against her by falsely reporting income to Service Canada, jeopardizing her Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment for performance-related reasons was made before the respondent received her report.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it did not falsely report income to Service Canada.

A teleconference case management hearing was held regarding two human rights applications.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the first application to deal with merits separately from remedy.

The Tribunal also noted it remained seized of the second application, encouraged mediation, removed CUPE Ontario Regional as a respondent on consent, and set a schedule for written submissions regarding the removal of CUPE National as a respondent.