William P. Dermody

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision extending the timeline for the Commission and Complainants to provide notice to relevant school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal acknowledged the logistical challenges and privacy concerns raised by counsel regarding the original 72-hour deadline set in a previous order.

The new deadline for dispatching notices and appropriate disclosure was set to October 28, 2005, with subsequent deadlines established for written submissions from the school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal considered whether to add school boards and bargaining agents as parties to human rights complaints alleging failure to accommodate autistic children in schools.

The Tribunal directed the Commission and Complainants' counsel to give notice to the school boards and bargaining agents forthwith, and requested written submissions from those entities on whether and to what extent they should participate in the proceedings.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to weekly income benefits and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and misrepresented his condition.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, having concealed a pre-existing work-related knee injury and a prior severe head injury from both the insurer and medical assessors.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and did not suffer an ongoing disability caused by the accident.

The applicant's claims were dismissed, and the insurer was granted repayment of the weekly income benefits paid, as they were induced by the applicant's culpable error and failed to account for deductible workers' compensation benefits.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the respondent pedestrian and her cohabitant were not spouses, which would have shifted liability for her accident benefits to the cohabitant's insurer.

The respondent and her cohabitant had lived together for over a decade but maintained separate finances, did not share a bedroom, and denied being romantically involved.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's application of the Molodowich criteria or his conclusion that the relationship was a close friendship rather than a conjugal one.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from Allstate, the insurer of the vehicle that struck her.

Allstate argued that the applicant was the spouse of her roommate, who was insured by Belair, and therefore Belair should pay the benefits.

The arbitrator applied the Molodowich factors and found that the applicant and her roommate were merely friends sharing accommodation, not spouses living in a conjugal relationship.

Allstate was found responsible for paying the applicant's statutory accident benefits.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.