Sheryl Johnson

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend her Application to add new allegations of disability discrimination dating back several years, add a claim of reprisal, and adjust the remedies sought.

The respondent sought to amend his Response to clarify facts regarding the issuance of a Record of Employment.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add new allegations and the reprisal claim, finding that the new allegations were out of time, did not form a series of incidents with the original termination allegation, and would prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedies sought and the respondent's request to amend the Response.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following a favourable decision from the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The respondents opposed, noting they were appealing to the WSIAT, and requested the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a cross-request for an interim remedy alleging abusive conduct by the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the WSIAT appeal and dismissed both parties' requests for orders, finding no vexatious or abusive conduct by either side.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, claiming his employment was terminated partly because he had filed a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding concurrent proceedings.

The respondents sought to defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing appeal before the WSIB regarding the same termination and reemployment rights.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were almost identical and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid duplication and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding disclosure obligations, including providing a list of witnesses and anticipated evidence.

Despite multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and reprisal after being terminated following a workplace injury and a subsequent WSIB claim.

He claimed the employer discouraged him from reporting the injury as work-related and terminated him for requesting accurate pay records.

The Tribunal found that the employer did not discourage the WSIB claim but rather sought medical confirmation to file the necessary forms.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was not a reprisal, but rather a legitimate response to the applicant's aggressive behaviour, yelling, and threats to damage the employer's business and reputation during a dispute over pay records.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.

The respondent did not seek costs.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of three individuals to vote.

The applicant union was required by Board policy to call one of the individuals as a witness, but sought to cross-examine him when his evidence proved adverse.

The Board permitted the cross-examination in the interests of justice.

On the merits, the Board rejected the responding party's argument that 'service work' is inherently not construction labourers' work.

Examining the specific tasks performed on the application date, the Board found that all three individuals spent a majority of their day performing work falling within the construction labourers' bargaining unit, and were therefore eligible to vote.