Richard J. Charney

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by the individual respondent.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding to dismiss allegations relating to an incident in 2006 due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the 2006 incident was not part of a series of incidents because there was a three-and-a-half-year gap and a break in employment between the incidents.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the time limit under s. 34(2) of the Code, finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith as the applicant had accepted an apology and regarded the matter as resolved at the time.

The 2006 allegations were dismissed.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after three days of hearing.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal only on the condition that the applicant undertake not to pursue a civil action related to his employment termination.

The Tribunal declined to impose the requested conditions, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to set parameters over matters before the civil courts, and permitted the application to be withdrawn without terms.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that her three witnesses be permitted to testify by phone due to their locations in Ottawa and Saskatoon.

The respondent objected, citing prejudice to cross-examination, inability to monitor the witnesses, and lack of access to exhibits.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, finding that the witnesses were not testifying to contradictory versions of specific events, but rather to their experiences with the applicant.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose the CVs of her witnesses to the respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its key witnesses was on medical leave and unable to work.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the hearing could begin without the witness and that further direction regarding the witness's evidence could be provided at the hearing.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after not being short-listed for a Co-Director position at York University.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on the relevance of six witnesses proposed by the applicant to challenge the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations.

The Tribunal allowed three witnesses whose evidence could speak to the credibility of the hiring committee's assessments regarding the applicant's interactions with diplomats and research reputation.

The Tribunal excluded three witnesses whose proposed evidence related to general character, teaching, or leadership skills not directly tied to the specific reasons given by the hiring committee for its decision.

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in employment, the parties filed requests for interim orders regarding document production.

The respondent sought production of documents from third-party real estate brokerages to show the applicant was actively employed while receiving short-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The applicant sought particulars regarding documents over which the respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal held that Rule 16 requires parties to provide sufficient information to allow the opposing party to evaluate the privilege claim, and ordered both parties to exchange specific details about the number, timing, and nature of the privileged documents.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent conceded liability for the personal respondent's conduct and had the ability to remedy any alleged infringement.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual, as his personal conduct was not a central issue, the Tribunal granted the request and removed him as a party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that denied its grievance regarding the interpretation of a contracting out provision in a collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to answer all questions or provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, consistent with his findings of fact, and sufficiently complete to allow for proper analysis.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination, agreeing that the Meiorin analysis applied rather than the Law analysis.

The court also upheld the finding that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding the tribunal breached the duty of fairness by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the tribunal for a rehearing on remedy only.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination and its conclusion that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement, as it did not prove it canvassed alternatives to its discriminatory practice.

However, the court found the tribunal breached natural justice by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to a different tribunal member for a rehearing solely on the issue of remedy.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Following an unsuccessful application for judicial review regarding mill closures, the applicants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest nature of the litigation.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondents, fixing the Ministry's costs at $22,368.68 and reducing Domtar's claimed costs to $12,000 to account for duplication of work among the respondents.

The union requested pre-hearing production of all arguably relevant emails and correspondence between LCBO managers relating to the grievor.

The employer objected, arguing the request was an unreasonable fishing expedition and that labour arbitration does not require civil-style documentary discovery.

The arbitrator held that under s. 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, arbitrators have the power to order pre-hearing production of arguably relevant documents.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce arguably relevant communications involving specific managers during a defined period, and made a reciprocal order for the union and grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions for the mutual production of arguably relevant email messages and written communications relating to the grievor.

The employer was directed to produce communications involving specified individuals, and the union was directed to produce communications involving the grievor.

The Board also established a process for asserting claims of privilege and authorized the employer to search its computer systems and email accounts to locate relevant documents.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the collective agreement violated the Human Rights Code by providing different drug and hospital benefit coverage durations for employees receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) benefits compared to those receiving long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator erred by failing to compare the two benefit schemes holistically.

When viewed in their entirety, the WSIA scheme provided significant advantages over the LTD plan, and the differential treatment did not constitute discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order concerning nine grievances heard together.

The parties agreed on the order of proceeding, with the employer proceeding first on a suspension/transfer grievance and the union proceeding first on the remaining grievances.

The Vice-Chair directed both parties to provide full written particulars of the facts on which they rely and to produce copies of all relevant documents in their possession, establishing a timetable for these exchanges.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The union argued that the employer bargained the scope clause to impasse and sought to strip the collective agreement of its substantive terms, replacing them with a cash payment enforceable only through individual commercial agreements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the scope clause was not bargained to impasse, the employer's attempt to remove substantive provisions from the collective agreement and replace them with an unenforceable cash payment violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered the parties to return to the bargaining table.

The applicant trade union filed a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and Roy Thomson Hall are related employers.

The responding party brought a motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing there was no labour relations purpose for the declaration.

The Board found that the union's admitted purpose was to extend its bargaining rights to other locations, rather than to preserve existing rights.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 46 to dismiss the application without a hearing on the merits.

In a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to make a preliminary sector determination regarding the carpentry portion of concrete forming construction at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport's Central De-Icing Facility.

The work involved underground vaults, holding tanks, and the foundation and above ground base for fresh Glycol tanks.

Applying an end-use analysis, the Board determined that the construction of the underground vaults and holding tanks, which manage effluent without changing its composition, falls within the sewers and watermains sector.

However, the construction of the foundation and above ground base for the fresh Glycol tanks, which are used for the commercial activity of applying fresh Glycol to aircraft, falls within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.