Robert Champagne

The intervenor, United Steelworkers Local 2251, requested leave to withdraw from participating in the human rights proceedings.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted the intervenor's request to withdraw and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The union requested intervenor status in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer alleging discrimination based on disability and sex.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as remedies could impact the union and affect a related grievance.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, allowing it to receive materials, attend mediation, and participate in the hearing to an extent to be determined by the presiding adjudicator.

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

As a related grievance was pending, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant and the union agreed to the deferral, while the respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene in the application, noting its interest in any potential remedy or settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance dealing with the same issues was already proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant's union and the respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding a significant risk of inconsistent findings of fact and duplication of resources if the application proceeded concurrently with the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability against her former employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant conceded the union did not encourage her to settle her grievance, leading to the dismissal of allegations against the union.

The Tribunal also found the application against the employer was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, including improper layoff and failure to investigate a harassment complaint.

The applicant had also filed three related grievances through her union which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondents and the union supported deferral.

Finding substantial overlap between the grievances and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex after his employment was terminated.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant and the respondent had signed a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a grievance related to his termination, which included a provision that the applicant would not commence any claim or complaint against the respondent.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because it violated the settlement agreement.

The applicant contended that he signed the settlement under economic duress because he needed the Record of Employment changed to receive employment insurance benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the settlement and was not under sufficient economic duress to invalidate the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision forbidding the implementation of a finger scan system for checking employees in and out of the workplace.

The employer argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and the decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer had conceded jurisdiction before the arbitrator and that the arbitrator's balancing of the employer's interests against the employees' privacy interests was not patently unreasonable.