Steven Menard

The applicant, a French-speaking employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry and reprisal after her supervisor allegedly asked her to remove bilingualism from her resume during a secondment application process.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not establish a link between the supervisor's conduct and her ancestry, and that the alleged reprisal related to union organizing rather than claiming or enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Health Care Aide with physical restrictions, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She was successfully accommodated in an evening shift position but applied for a day shift position that she could not physically perform, hoping it would lead to a transfer to a day shift position she could perform.

The respondent denied the application and assigned the position to a less senior employee.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent had already successfully accommodated the applicant, and the failure to transfer her to a preferred shift, which would require displacing another employee and overriding seniority rights under the Collective Agreement, did not constitute discrimination.

The applicants, a gay couple, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the Town of Arnprior, its Mayor, and various municipal employees and councillors regarding the provision of municipal services and the Town's response to homophobic harassment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed against the ten personal respondents.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and dismissed the application against the municipal employees and councillors, finding no compelling reason to include them as the Town accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the Mayor as a party at this stage due to his central role in the alleged discrimination.

The applicant union brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the rationalization of rehabilitation services among three hospitals.

The rationalization involved transferring services and employees to a consolidated centre at the responding party hospital, constituting a sale of a business.

The primary issue was whether the seniority of incoming employees should be dovetailed or end-tailed into the existing bargaining unit's seniority list.

The Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred despite the physical transfers not yet being complete.

The Board ordered that the seniority lists be dovetailed, recognizing the incoming employees' accrued seniority in full, as it provided the most equitable reconciliation of interests and facilitated the rationalization process.