Steven F. Wilson

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it discriminated against the applicant by terminating her employment while she was on medical leave, and awarded $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent argued the adjudicator denied it procedural fairness by refusing production requests and discounting evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the finding of discrimination, finding no bias or conflict with established jurisprudence.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration of the compensation award, finding the original adjudicator improperly increased the award to sanction the respondent for vigorously defending itself during the hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on quantum or schedule a new hearing.

The applicant, a food service supervisor at a retirement residence, failed to attend work and provided doctor's notes indicating she needed a medical leave due to acute anxiety and depression.

The respondent employer, facing a critical staffing shortage, did not investigate her medical condition or seek further information, but instead deemed her to have resigned.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability and that the respondent breached both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her under section 5 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,760.38 for lost wages and $25,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated, filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination regarding the respondent's recommendation to revoke her teaching certificate.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance concerning her termination and alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration process, noting the overlapping issues.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their Response to the Application and requesting further production of the applicant's financial and telephone records.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments related to the dates of the applicant's vacation request, as they were relevant to the respondents' defence that the applicant was not disabled.

However, the Tribunal denied the amendments adding background details about other employees.

The Tribunal also denied the requests for further document production, finding that the respondents failed to establish how the requested records would prove or disprove any factual or legal issue in dispute.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent school board and several individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The applicant did not provide submissions, while the respondent board supported deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached a previous human rights settlement and engaged in a reprisal by asking her not to attend a Christmas concert at the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not breach the confidentiality provision or fail to meet their obligations regarding human rights training and posting Code cards.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents' actions in reminding the applicant not to attend the workplace were based on their interpretation of the settlement agreement and did not demonstrate an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant school board filed an application alleging that the responding union threatened or authorized an unlawful strike by issuing a 'pink list' advising teachers not to accept jobs with the school board.

The school board had recently ratified a collective agreement with its elementary teachers, but secondary teachers were still negotiating.

The school board argued that the hiring boycott could cause an unlawful strike in the elementary bargaining unit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the definition of 'strike' under the Labour Relations Act applies only to 'employees,' and cannot be stretched to encompass individuals who have not yet applied for positions or future employees.

The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.

The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.

The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether a conciliation officer must be appointed following the sale of a hospital business.

The predecessor employer and the union had already completed conciliation and constituted an arbitration board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act prior to the sale.

The Board advised the Minister that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, the union's notice to bargain to the successor employer has the same effect as certification, entitling the parties to utilize all dispute resolution mechanisms anew.

Consequently, the previously constituted arbitration board has no jurisdiction over the successor employer, and the Minister is required to appoint a conciliation officer.