Roy Filion

The applicant, a teacher placed on medical leave, sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review of an arbitration award for delay.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance filed by the union on his behalf.

The court found that the applicant lacked standing to seek judicial review of the arbitration award, as the union had not taken a position adverse to him and there was no evidence of deficient representation.

Because the application had no real chance of success on the merits, the motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal order was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding advancement and promotion.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted given its representation of the applicant in ongoing related grievances.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its normal practice to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with authority to resolve them.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the respondents objected to the inclusion of evidence concerning a 2004 refusal of 'exceptional case status' in the first phase of a bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, confirming that the allegation of discrimination in the promotion process would be heard in the first phase, as no timeliness objection had been raised earlier.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against his former employer, a school board, and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address issues of delay regarding the 2010 application and the removal of personal respondents from the 2009 application.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2010 application, finding that the applicant failed to file within the one-year limitation period and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the 2009 application, applying the Persaud factors and finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination in the promotion process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision confirming that the hearing and disclosure would be bifurcated into two phases.

The first phase would address the individual allegations of discrimination, including the refusal of 'exceptional case status', while broader statistical and contextual evidence would be deferred to the second phase.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and age against the school board and her former principal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address the timeliness of pre-retirement allegations and whether the timely post-retirement allegation had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the pre-retirement allegations were out of time and did not form a series of incidents with the post-retirement refusal to provide a reference.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegation, as the applicant could not point to evidence linking the refusal to a prohibited ground beyond mere speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations pre-dating July 2004 due to delay, and the dismissal of systemic discrimination claims for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2004 allegations were not part of a series of incidents and dismissed them as untimely.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the systemic discrimination claims, finding it premature to conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.

To manage the broad scope of evidence, the Tribunal directed that the hearing be bifurcated between individual allegations and broader contextual evidence, as well as between liability and remedy.

The respondent school board brought a request to dismiss the applicant teacher's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had previously grieved his suspension, and an arbitrator had dismissed the grievance after considering an independent medical examination and concluding that the applicant was unfit to perform his duties and could not be accommodated.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration was a proceeding within the meaning of the Code and that the arbitrator had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's principles in Figliola regarding finality and the avoidance of duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an objection under the Pay Equity Act, arguing that the wage grid for female job classes should be compressed to match the shorter wage grid of their male comparators in another bargaining unit.

The Tribunal found that the union was not estopped from raising the issue, but concluded that the Pay Equity Act does not require the equalization of wage grid structures, only the adjustment of job rates.

The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the differing grid structures violated the Human Rights Code, noting that the Pay Equity Act is a comprehensive scheme akin to a special program.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged that the School Board and its employees discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour.

He claimed he was reported to the Ontario College of Teachers for failing to promptly report a potential sexual assault because he is Black, or as a reprisal for reporting a White teacher's misconduct.

He also alleged a senior official made a racist comment about his legal representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the School Board had cause to report the applicant and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not a reliable witness and concluded the alleged racist comment was never made.

Requests for production and summons were denied as irrelevant.

The applicant, a Black teacher, filed human rights complaints against his school board, his union (OSSTF), and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging racial discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents OSSTF and the College requested the dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations against the school board and OSSTF for falling outside the one-year limitation period, finding the applicant's bald assertion of fear of reprisal insufficient to establish good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applications against OSSTF and the College entirely, finding that their communications regarding the applicant's representation did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The application against the school board was permitted to continue regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the workplace.

The respondent and the applicant's union indicated that a grievance based on the same facts had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that the applicant failed to comply with a Tribunal order to produce an unredacted psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's deliberate refusal to produce the document prejudiced the respondents and impaired the Tribunal's ability to assess the facts.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the complete report within seven days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant requested permission to audiotape the upcoming Case Resolution Conference hearing as an aide-memoire.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it would cause delay, formality, and potential discomfort for witnesses.

The Tribunal found that audiotaping is akin to taking notes and that concerns about misuse could be addressed through conditions.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing either party to audiotape the hearing subject to strict conditions regarding the use and dissemination of the recordings.

The complainant, a bilingual secretary and customer service representative, went on medical leave due to acute situational reaction and depression after discovering a coworker had taken inappropriate photographs of her in the workplace.

When her doctor indicated she would need three to six months off work, the employer terminated her employment, claiming her position was pivotal and they could not operate without her.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.

The employer failed to fulfill its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, as it did not inquire into her medical condition or seriously explore hiring a temporary replacement.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity and $12,169.12 for lost wages.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable or best efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.

Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing the outcome could have significant financial repercussions for them.

The arbitrator reviewed the case law on third-party standing, distinguishing between employees governed by a collective agreement, third-party unions in jurisdictional disputes, and third-party contractors.

The arbitrator concluded the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a contractor and did not confer an entitlement to notice or standing.

The applications for standing were denied.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent an 'all employee' bargaining unit at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital (KPH) site of the newly created Providence Continuing Care Centre (PCCC).

OPSEU also applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transitions Act (PSLRTA) to determine the appropriate bargaining units following the amalgamation of KPH and St. Mary's of the Lake Hospital (SMOL).

The Board found that agreements entered into between PCCC and other unions under section 20(4) of the PSLRTA were valid and precluded the Board from reconfiguring those specific bargaining units.

However, the Board determined that the single 'all employee' bargaining unit sought by OPSEU for the KPH site was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act when the responding party, Northway Bus Lines, purchased school buses from Hanmer Bus Lines after Hanmer went out of business.

Northway also hired some former Hanmer drivers and was awarded bus routes by the school board that Hanmer previously serviced.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that Northway merely purchased physical assets and did not acquire Hanmer's business or any part of it.

The school board routes were awarded through a normal competitive process and did not constitute a transfer of a business.

The appellant appealed an order staying his defamation action against a school board and related individuals.

The Court of Appeal held the essential character of the claim arose from disciplinary and termination-related matters governed by a collective agreement containing grievance and binding arbitration provisions.

Applying the labour arbitration exclusivity jurisprudence, the court found the appellant could not avoid arbitral jurisdiction by framing the claim as defamation.

The constitutional argument under s.96 was also rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a common employer declaration and filed construction industry grievances against the responding parties.

The responding parties requested reconsideration of a prior Board order for production of documents, arguing it was too broad.

The Board declined to vary the production order but granted a confidentiality order, directing that pricing information could be redacted and documents must be used exclusively for the litigation.

The Board also established a procedure for the responding parties' motion to dismiss parts of the case on a prima facie basis.