Roy Filion

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions regarding the calculation of payouts for unused sick days upon retirement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement required rounding up years of service for teachers with more than X.500 years, and prohibited rounding down for those with less.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and rejection of the board's past practice and estoppel arguments to be reasonable.

The applicant brought human rights applications on behalf of herself and her child, alleging discrimination in education services by the school board and personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing by telephone to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, and to address requests to amend the applications and remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found that the allegations depended on context and evidence, and therefore could not be dismissed at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the applications and deferred the issue of removing the personal respondents to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Toronto Transit Commission from implementing random drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees pending the outcome of a policy grievance arbitration.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any privacy breaches or wrongful dismissals could be compensated with damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the significant public interest in transit safety and evidence of a workplace drug and alcohol problem.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, filed two human rights applications against her school board employer and her union, alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the older allegations against the school board did not form a series of incidents with the timely ones and were dismissed for delay, as the applicant lacked a good faith explanation.

The timely allegations against both the school board and the union were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination or establishing reprisal.

Both applications were dismissed in their entirety.

The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.

The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.

The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Throughout the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly disregarded the Tribunal's directions, filed numerous frivolous requests for orders, and made unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing against opposing counsel, Tribunal staff, and others regarding the filing of materials.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's persistent refusal to accept rulings and her preoccupation with filing issues derailed the proceeding, making it manifestly unfair to the respondents.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process, though the Tribunal declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a human rights application based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

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

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievance process could take years and might result in a settlement that does not protect him from future discrimination.

The respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring applications where an active grievance raises the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing to allow more time for settlement discussions and because her newly retained representative was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that neither the desire to continue settlement discussions nor the late retention of a representative constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, an attendant employed by the respondent school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after being denied a promotion to Custodian.

He claimed the respondent imposed arbitrary and shifting English language proficiency standards that were not required for the job.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the required Basic Custodian Test due to incomplete and incorrect answers, not solely due to language proficiency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if language requirements were imposed, the applicant provided no evidence linking them to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent school board.

She subsequently filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application to include additional allegations, evidence, and parties.

The Tribunal allowed the application to be amended to include an allegation that an internal investigation report was a reprisal for filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the other requested amendments, finding they were either evidentiary in nature, untimely, or would unduly expand the scope of the proceedings.

The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.

The applicant school board opposed the motion.

The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant, a part-time attendant, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on race, creed, and other grounds, as well as reprisal, after failing to secure a promotion to custodian and experiencing various payroll issues.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and whether the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2008 testing, payroll issues, family status, and reprisal for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the 2011 testing process to proceed, finding that the applicant's pursuit of union grievances provided a good faith explanation for the delay in filing.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant and had a miscarriage, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to performance issues and that the decision was made before management learned of the pregnancy.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence, supported by internal emails, credible and concluded that the decision to terminate was made prior to the applicant disclosing her pregnancy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of two union grievances.

She argued that one grievance was abandoned and the other was limited in scope and delayed.

The respondent conceded that the continuing grievance would not address all allegations but argued for partial deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding it impractical to partially defer the application while the arbitration was underway, and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the arbitration.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the allegations were also the subject of two ongoing grievances proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievances, noting that deferral is generally appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to seek legal representation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that a party's decision to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, particularly where the party had several months to do so.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment regarding a job competition.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of various documents, including interview notes and names of all applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for materials relating to other unsuccessful candidates, finding the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance.

The respondent was ordered to produce the formal offer made to the successful candidate, as agreed.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to clarify the scope of the applicant's human rights complaint after the applicant attempted to introduce new allegations shortly before the hearing.

The applicant sought to add broad claims of systemic discrimination against South Asians and new allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request in part, refusing to allow the late amendment for the systemic discrimination claims due to prejudice and delay.

However, the Tribunal permitted the amendment regarding post-complaint reprisal, finding it inextricably linked to the ongoing employment relationship and not prejudicial to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being unsuccessful in job competitions.

The applicant's bargaining agent filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking clarification of the issues, alleging the applicant was attempting to amend her application via an undisclosed email.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a copy of the email to the Tribunal and the intervenor within 7 days.