Thomas Stefanik

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability related to workplace chemical exposure.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the discontinuation of her Loss of Earning benefits.

Finding significant factual and legal overlap concerning whether the respondent took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the WSIAT appeal to avoid inconsistent findings.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a personal respondent and to compel the applicant to produce documents related to mitigation of damages.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud criteria and removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce his income tax returns and documents relating to his job search and subsequent employment, as they were arguably relevant to his claim for lost wages.

The applicant, a forklift operator with Alopecia Areata, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and gender identity after being passed over for a full-time position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the initial pleadings lacked specific evidence.

The applicant's counsel argued that new evidence of discriminatory statements by a manager existed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage to promote access to justice, but ordered the applicant to file an amended application detailing the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled merits hearing.

The respondent and its witnesses attended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date and location but chose not to attend.

Noting its duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and the resources expended by the respondent and the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he and another older candidate were excluded from a job competition for a call centre agent position, while younger candidates advanced.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had pointed to sufficient evidence—specifically, the advancement of younger candidates and his own extensive relevant experience—to establish a reasonable prospect that he could prove a link between his age and the respondent's actions.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation or a merits hearing.

The applicant and respondents both filed requests for production of documents prior to the hearing of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for personnel files and emails, finding them not arguably relevant as the respondents were not relying on progressive discipline.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request for the applicant's tax returns and job search records, as they were arguably relevant to the mitigation of damages, but denied the request for legal fee records because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and his union.

Following a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the union and consented to the union participating as an intervenor.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the union, amended the employer's name, and granted the union intervenor status.

The plaintiff, an 18-year employee, was terminated from his position as Service Manager but immediately offered an identical position at the same salary at a related dealership.

The plaintiff refused the offer, citing concerns about seniority and the future of the new dealership, and sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff's refusal was objectively unreasonable and that he failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to deliver a $9,000 settlement cheque within the agreed two-week timeframe.

The cheque was delivered six days late.

The Tribunal found that the respondent fulfilled its obligations and the short delay amounted to a trivial breach that caused no harm beyond minor inconvenience.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a change of venue from Toronto to Sudbury and a shortened hearing schedule as an accommodation for her disabilities.

The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence indicating that travel and prolonged activity would exacerbate her condition and interfere with her rehabilitation.

The Tribunal granted the request, changing the venue to Sudbury and limiting the hearing to two hours, with evidence to be provided primarily through written statements and cross-examination.

The applicant, a courier driver, filed a human rights application against her employer, a national courier service.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it is a federally regulated transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent engages in transportation works extending beyond the province, placing it under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation.

After several pre-hearing motions, the complainant's counsel was removed from the record and the complainant could not be located.

The Commission brought a motion to dispose of the complaint.

The respondent sought an order dismissing the complaint and awarding costs against the Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but declined to award costs, finding no evidence that the Commission acted improperly or that the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

The moving party brought a preliminary motion, supported by the complainant, to allow a witness residing in Nunavut to testify by telephone conference call.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that the witness's credibility was in issue and that her evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the responding party would not be significantly prejudiced by the electronic taking of evidence, given the high costs and disruption of requiring the witness to travel to Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the evidence be taken by video conference if reasonably practicable, or otherwise by telephone.

Following a decision finding the respondents liable for violations of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents requested a re-attendance to address the impact of an Employment Standards award on the Board's compensation order, and to amend the wording of the Notice to Employees.

The Board found the request regarding compensation premature, as the parties had not yet attempted to resolve the quantum of damages themselves.

The Board agreed to amend the Notice to Employees to accurately reflect the specific remedy granted in the decision.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.

The applicant employer sought declarations that the concerted refusal of its employees to work overtime during a period of layoffs constituted an illegal strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union had a long-standing bylaw, accepted by the employer in practice, prohibiting overtime work while members were laid off.

The Board found that the employees were acting in accordance with a common understanding.

However, the Board declined to decide whether the conduct met the definition of a strike, instead exercising its discretion under section 92 of the Act to refuse the requested declarations and remedies.

The Board reasoned that intervening would not serve the interests of harmonious labour relations given the parties' historical acceptance of the practice and the voluntary nature of overtime under the collective agreement.

The applicant brought an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario and that they are related employers.

The Crown challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown pursuant to section 11 of the Interpretation Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown.

The Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to find the Crown to be a related employer or bound by a collective agreement, and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the initial certification, leading to a Divisional Court order remitting the matter to the Board.

The Board considered a statement of desire opposing the union and a counter-petition reaffirming union support.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to consider the counter-petition and that it was voluntary.

The Board held that the statement of desire was not a reliable indicator of voluntary employee wishes because the employer had suggested the name of the lawyer assisting the objecting employees.

Finding that over 55% of employees supported the union, the Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested the Board apply section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices that prevented the ascertainment of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act when a manager attempted to elicit information from an employee about the union and suggested forming an employee association.

However, the Board concluded that this violation, along with a previously remedied unlawful termination, did not make it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained.

The application for certification under section 8 was dismissed, but the Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from unlawful interference and to post and distribute a notice to employees.