William Gale

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination following his termination.

The respondent employer requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release was void due to misrepresentation and because it contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence of misrepresentation and determined the severance package provided a greater benefit than statutory minimums.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment that led to her early retirement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant retired, which was more than three years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the union's decision not to pursue her grievance constituted a new incident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, and reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a severance package.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant exercised an informed and reasoned choice when signing the release, with no evidence of severe financial pressure or duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The WSIB disciplined the grievor, a union president, for inappropriate comments made to a union steward while they were off-duty and engaged in union business.

The union grieved the discipline and brought a preliminary motion arguing the employer had no authority to discipline for off-duty conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board also considered a motion for production of documents related to a human rights complaint.

The Board ordered the production of the human rights pleadings.

On the main preliminary issue, the Board held that the conduct occurred entirely within the union committee and had no nexus to the employer's legitimate interests.

The employer therefore had no authority to discipline the grievor, and the discipline was set aside.

The applicant, a union chief steward, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal by the respondents following a sexual harassment complaint against another union representative.

She sought an interim remedy under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to reinstate her use of a private office at the employer's premises, arguing it was necessary for her safety and to avoid contact with the alleged harasser.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her safety concerns were unsubstantiated and she had alternative locations to perform her union duties.

The union grieved the discharge of a Claims Adjudicator who was dismissed for allegedly conspiring with a previous claimant and another employee to defraud the WSIB of approximately $55,000.

The employer relied heavily on a tape-recorded statement from a co-conspirator implicating the grievor.

The union challenged the admissibility of the statement, arguing it was obtained in violation of the co-conspirator's Charter and union representation rights.

The arbitrator admitted the statement, finding no Charter or representation rights were breached during the investigation interview, and concluded there was clear and cogent evidence that the grievor participated in the fraud.

The grievance was denied.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, as well as evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry ruled both types of evidence inadmissible.

The proposed similar fact evidence lacked a nexus to the material facts in dispute, and the academic credentials of the respondent were irrelevant to his ability to assess the complainants' performance.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the respondents objected to the admissibility of two types of evidence proposed by the Commission.

The Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, and evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry upheld the respondents' objections, ruling that both types of evidence were irrelevant to the material facts in dispute.

The similar fact evidence lacked sufficient similarity and nexus to the complaints, while the academic credentials evidence was collateral and went only to credibility.

The Board of Inquiry heard two pre-hearing motions in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought an adjournment because a personal respondent was required to travel to a conference, which the Board denied as it would cause undue delay and disrupt the proceedings.

The Commission sought disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which led to their termination.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the termination assessment.

The respondents requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because the personal respondent was required to travel to a conference.

The Commission requested disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which was the stated reason for their termination.

The Board of Inquiry denied the adjournment request, finding it would be too disruptive and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the respondents' assessment of the complainants' work performance.

In an application for certification, the union and employer agreed on a bargaining unit description that excluded 'office and clerical staff'.

The sole remaining issue was whether receptionists fell within this exclusion.

The Board found that while receptionists shared some community of interest with bargaining unit employees, their duties were primarily administrative and clerical in nature, involving the collection of information that flowed to the accounting staff.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the receptionists fell within the office and clerical exclusion and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the parties had reached a binding oral settlement during a meeting with a Board Officer.

The applicant argued that the settlement was only tentative and that his former counsel lacked authority to bind him without his final approval of the written documents.

The Board found that a final oral settlement had been reached and that the applicant's former counsel had ostensible authority to bind him.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint.