Raquel Chisholm

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed her complaint that her former employer terminated her as a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board had found she was terminated for cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board's Vice-Chair.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the Court held that the Board's decision was logical, well-reasoned, and based on an extensive review of the evidence.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent filed a Response asserting that many allegations were untimely.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to strike the Response, arguing it was not delivered to her as required by a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no prejudice to the applicant because the respondent followed the usual procedure for filing a Response.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to address the delay issue and ordered the parties to confirm their interest in mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

Before filing its Response, the respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to produce her occupational health file, arguing it was necessary to meaningfully respond.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the Response or granting early production of the documents, as the respondent had made its decisions based on the information available to it at the time.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following absences related to a slip and fall injury and a miscarriage.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that these conditions were temporary and did not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that both the slip and fall injury, which took weeks to heal, and the miscarriage were not common or transitory ailments and constituted disabilities under the Code, regardless of whether they had resolved by the time of termination.

The respondent in a human rights application requested early production of documents from the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department file, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances that would prevent the respondent from filing its Response without the documents, as the application primarily concerned managerial conduct rather than workplace accommodation.

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that established a new job classification system and wage grid for the bargaining unit.

The union argued the panel's adoption of the employer's proposed wage grid violated s. 11(6) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by reducing male wages to achieve pay equity, and failed to apply the replication principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel's decision was reasonable.

The panel was tasked with creating a completely new classification system, not correcting an existing one, and reasonably concluded that s. 11(6) did not apply or was not breached.

The panel also reasonably applied the replication principle by considering objective market forces and economic realities.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status after she and her new partner were banned from attending the respondent church.

The applicant claimed the ban was due to her separation from her husband and her choice of a new partner.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and her partner had engaged in abusive, threatening, and inappropriate behaviour towards the church's priest and staff on multiple occasions.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was banned because of this behaviour, not because of her marital status, and dismissed the application.

The respondent hospital requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records, including his occupational health file, records from a treating surgeon, and his OHIP Personal Claim History.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability (diabetes) following his termination during probation, had refused consent.

The Tribunal found the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance to the issues of accommodation and the reasons for termination.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the records, subject to strict limitations on their use by the respondent.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 870, filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and race.

The respondent took no position and the applicant did not respond.

Noting that a union typically has an interest in such applications, particularly where reinstatement is sought, the Tribunal granted the Request to Intervene.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add reprisal allegations and compel the respondent to continue an external investigator's retainer.

The application had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance procedures.

The Tribunal declined to consider the requests, noting that the grievance proceedings had not concluded and the application must remain deferred until a proper request to reactivate is filed under Rule 14.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of three union grievances.

The applicant provided letters from her union confirming that all three grievances had been withdrawn.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application returned to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, alongside two workplace grievances alleging suspension without just cause and harassment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the concurrent grievance process.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.

The applicant, a registered nurse with a permanent back impairment, alleged that her employer, the Hospital, and her union, ONA, discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against ONA for failing to establish a prima facie case.

Regarding the Hospital, the Tribunal found no discrimination or harassment in its handling of a workplace conflict or its accommodation efforts in 2006 and 2007.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Hospital failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship when it prematurely ended her gradual return to work program in October 2009 and placed her in a Labour Market Re-Entry program without continuing to search for suitable permanent accommodation.

The claim of reprisal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and place of origin.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was entirely reasonable, as the Vice-Chair had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, assessed credibility, and provided cogent reasons for preferring the respondent's evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's use of non-bargaining unit agency personnel to perform bargaining unit work.

The arbitrator found that the arrangement constituted 'contracting in' rather than 'contracting out', and that the collective agreement contained an implied term prohibiting the use of agency workers in this manner for longer than two weeks.

The Divisional Court set aside the award on judicial review, finding it patently unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Union's appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.