Robert B. Bayne

TSN brought a motion to set aside an ex parte sealing order that restricted public access to a court file involving the Niagara Ice Dogs and the Ontario Hockey League.

The underlying dispute concerned an OHL investigation into an alleged unwritten contract between the team and a player.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found that while protecting the identity of minor players was an important public interest, there was no real and substantial risk to that interest on the evidence, especially since the complainant's identity was already public.

The sealing order was set aside, and costs were awarded to TSN and the OHL against the team.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services because of disability, claiming that the respondent's computer-based menu boards were inaccessible due to his low vision.

The respondent requested the removal of its Regional Vice President as a personal respondent and sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to include him.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to establish a link between the alleged inaccessibility of the menu boards and his disability, noting his admission that most people find the boards difficult to see.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The respondent acknowledged that the WSIAT proceedings had concluded but opposed the reactivation, arguing the applicant was attempting to amend the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that the sole issue on such a request is whether the other proceeding has concluded, and directed the applicant to file a separate request if he wished to amend his application.

The applicant, whose employment was terminated for alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud the respondent's damaged goods program, sought to call the respondent's Vice-President of Distribution Operations as a witness after the respondent decided not to call him.

The applicant argued his evidence was relevant to show he also benefited from the program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the proposed evidence irrelevant to assessing whether the applicant's termination was discriminatory based on marital and family status, as the Vice-President was not investigated and did not make the termination decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status, specifically regarding a policy requiring part-time employees to be available for midnight shifts.

The respondent franchisor, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing it only provided operational support to the franchisee and did not control day-to-day operations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the franchisee had attached the franchisor's employment policies to its response, and the franchisor's liability could not be determined without evidence and argument at a hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending an appeal under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant withdrew her ESA appeal without prejudice to her Tribunal application, and the respondent consented to the reactivation.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, which the Tribunal dismissed during a case management teleconference because eviction proceedings had not commenced and no medical documentation was filed.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure obligations, declining to dismiss the application and allowing a late-filed medical document subject to further submissions on prejudice at the hearing.

The Tribunal noted no evidence of witness interference by the respondent and directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family and marital status be deferred pending a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the applicant's Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal found that the factual circumstances in the application overlapped significantly with the ESA claim, creating a risk of inconsistent factual findings.

Given the overlap and the advanced stage of the OLRB proceeding, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had remitted the matter to the WSIB, which issued a decision on benefits.

However, the respondent indicated its intention to appeal the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that the related proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were still ongoing and the reasons for deferral remained valid.

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint against several corporate respondents and two locals of the Carpenters' Union.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike portions of the related employer application for lack of particulars.

The Board found that the applicant lacked status to challenge the Carpenters' bargaining rights because it did not hold pre-existing bargaining rights for the employees in question, and that it had delayed in bringing the complaint.

The Board struck those portions of the complaint.

However, the Board declined to strike the related employer application, finding the pleadings sufficiently particularized given the nature of such applications where facts lie within the exclusive knowledge of the respondents.

The IBEW filed applications alleging unfair labour practices, seeking a sale of business and related employer declaration, and referring a grievance to arbitration against GDC, GFP, Wabi, and Unicorn.

The Board found that Minutes of Settlement previously entered into by GDC created a binding obligation to sign the IBEW Principal Agreement, allowing the section 96(7) complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the remaining applications, finding that GDC's decision to cease operating as a general contractor was due to financial difficulties, not anti-union animus.

The Board also found no sale of a business to the other entities and declined to make a related employer declaration, as there was no common control and it would inappropriately extend bargaining rights.