Steve Lavender

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant's grievance had been settled.

The applicant disputed agreeing to the settlement and filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights proceedings pending the outcome of the Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his civil action against his employer, which included a claim for malicious prosecution arising from a traffic charge instigated by the employer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

As the statement of claim attacked a wide array of employer conduct in managing the workplace, the courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicant, who uses a walking stick, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission discriminated against him on the basis of disability during two incidents.

In the first, a streetcar operator asked to inspect his transfer after he was seated.

In the second, a subway guard locked a cab door open, blocking access to the seats opposite the cab, which the applicant wished to use.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the operator had a reasonable basis for the fare inspection and that the subway seating policy did not result in differential treatment, as other seats were readily available.

The respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.