Steve Lavender

The moving party sought an extension of time of approximately 18 months to apply for judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding compensation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the explanation for the delay weak, doubtful apparent grounds for relief given the union's refusal to pursue judicial review, and substantial prejudice to the respondents due to the lengthy delay and the importance of finality in labour relations.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged racial discrimination and harassment by his employer, the Toronto Transit Commission.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the allegations had been dealt with in a prior grievance settlement and a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a February 2012 incident and the applicant's termination, finding that the grievance settlement and the arbitrator's finding of just cause appropriately dealt with those issues.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of differential treatment and harassment to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration and WSIB proceedings.

The respondent supported deferral, while the self-represented applicant opposed it due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues raised across the proceedings and deferred the application to avoid the potential for differing conclusions on the same facts, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

In an application alleging discrimination based on disability, the respondent requested an order compelling the applicant to produce the complete clinical notes and records of his treating psychiatrist.

The Tribunal had previously issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring this production.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the complete clinical notes and records within 14 days, noting their arguable relevance to the issues raised in the application.

A previous production order against the respondent's medical provider was deemed moot.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination requested an order for the production of clinical notes and records from a third-party physician who had examined him on behalf of the respondent.

The respondent claimed the physician made no notes, but the applicant pointed to statutory record-keeping obligations.

The Tribunal found the records arguably relevant and ordered the third-party physician to produce the records or confirm in writing that none exist.

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

After the hearing commenced and the applicant was cross-examined, he failed to comply with a Tribunal order for further disclosure.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw his application, citing medical reasons.

The respondent requested that the withdrawal be with prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal with prejudice, noting that unlike cases where applications are withdrawn before a hearing, the hearing in this matter had already commenced and the applicant had testified.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

He claimed that the respondent denied his requests for sick benefits because he refused to provide a medical diagnosis, citing privacy concerns.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's issue was fundamentally about privacy, which is not protected under the Code, and that he failed to explain how the eligibility criteria resulted in disadvantageous treatment related to a disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management files and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that exceptional circumstances existed because privacy legislation prevented the respondent from accessing arguably relevant medical documents in its possession.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding termination of employment sought an interim order to access the applicant's personal health information held by its Occupational Health and Claims Management Section, and for an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant consented to the access but sought to limit disclosure and the length of the extension.

The Tribunal granted the request to access the health information, limiting disclosure to necessary disclosures only, and granted a 15-day extension of time for the respondent to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated because of his disability.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that a concurrent grievance process was well underway and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance/arbitration process.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour and sex against her supervisor regarding a comment about a washroom break and subsequent discipline for insubordination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and considered a request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination allegation regarding the comment for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence beyond the applicant's perception linking the comment to her race or gender.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the discipline under section 45.1, finding that the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with and settled in a prior grievance process.

The applicant, a black man from Jamaica employed by the respondent since 1982, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin after being repeatedly denied promotions to a foreperson position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's early allegations from 1990 were out of time and did not warrant an extension.

Regarding the recent job competitions, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant lacked reasonably available evidence to link the respondent's failure to promote him to any prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking clarification on whether the applicant alleged that the job description and educational qualifications were discriminatory, and if so, requesting that the applicant's union be added as a respondent.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant confirmed she was not alleging the educational requirements were discriminatory.

Based on this clarification, the parties agreed the request should be denied and the union not added.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed the matter to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation for chronic migraines.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application relied on the same factual context and sought human rights damages.

As section 34(11) creates a mandatory bar against duplicate proceedings, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application two and a half months after the conclusion of a related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding, missing the 60-day deadline under Rule 14.4.

The respondent and intervenor opposed the reactivation, arguing it was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's reasons for the delay were not entirely reasonable, the respondent and intervenor failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice resulting from the two-and-a-half-month delay.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time limit and allowed the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race after his employment was terminated.

The respondent terminated the applicant after he was absent from work without leave, misled personnel, and was found by police with a smell of marijuana in his car.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to show any link between the termination of his employment and his race.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents, as the corporate respondent could remedy any potential Code infringement and no prejudice would result to the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicant, a former dispatcher, filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further disclosure from the respondent, including his full medical and employment files, specific emails, and break schedules.

The respondent maintained it had already produced all arguably relevant documents, including the occupational health file and emails, and argued the remaining requested documents were not relevant to the reasons for the applicant's dismissal.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding the applicant had not established the arguable relevance of the employment file or break schedules, and accepted the respondent's assertion that the other documents had already been produced.

The respondent requested an order compelling the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, specifically seeking medical records related to the applicant's alleged disabilities and documents regarding his mitigation efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and mitigation documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation and damages, but declined to order the production of an OHIP summary.