Stuart Ducoffe

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend the Application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

As the respondent consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the motion and amended the Application pursuant to Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex after being dismissed without cause.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing the parties had already reached a binding settlement agreement through their respective legal counsel.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's former legal counsel had agreed to all essential terms of a settlement, including a full release of human rights claims, and that the respondent was entitled to rely on the solicitor's authority.

The Tribunal concluded that a binding settlement had been reached and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the applicant developed medical restrictions, and the employer accommodated her by adjusting her schedule, moving her to the day shift, and creating a custom work station.

After the applicant went on an indefinite medical leave, her physician eventually confirmed she was permanently unfit to return to work.

The Tribunal found that the employer's duty to accommodate ended when the applicant was permanently unable to fulfill the basic obligations of her employment, establishing undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was terminated for union activity.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was circulated on company time and premises with the tacit support of management.

The Board also found that the employer's termination of a union supporter, ostensibly for asking another employee to steal files, was tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary statement of desire, as it was circulated by an employee during working hours and signed by a foreman who directed another employee to sign it.

Given the perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification based on the union's membership evidence.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.