Robert Budd

The applicant, a refugee with mental health problems, alleged discrimination based on disability and receipt of public assistance after being evicted from the respondent's transitional housing program.

The respondent, a non-profit organization providing temporary housing to refugees, evicted the applicant after nearly two years to make room for other clients.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the eviction from a transitional housing program with limited capacity was not arbitrary and did not amount to a Code violation.

The applicant, a Personal Support Worker and recent Chinese immigrant, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race after she was transferred to casual status and her hours were reduced following incidents involving resident care.

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

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant could prove she was treated unfairly, she had no reasonable prospect of establishing a link between her treatment and her race or immigrant status, as there was no evidence of discriminatory comments or conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on breach of settlement and reprisal, following his termination for sexual harassment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the labour arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the arbitrator fully addressed the issues, applied human rights principles, and provided adequate safeguards.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had engaged in negotiations that broke down after the legal strike deadline passed.

The Board found that the respondent employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, notably by implementing a wage increase without consulting the union and refusing to schedule further negotiations.

The Board also found the employer's bargaining positions—which sought to severely limit arbitral review, undermine seniority, and impose a two-tier compensation system—were uncompromising and taken without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed that bargaining had broken down solely due to their respective positions, leaving the reasonableness of the employer's position as the only issue.

The employer insisted on a one-month loss of seniority provision for laid-off employees, which would effectively deny recall rights to its seasonal workforce.

The Board found this position to be uncompromising and without reasonable justification, noting the employer's reliance on administrative burden was unpersuasive given its computer systems.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.