3 total
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Employment Standards Act complaint regarding bonus reduction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including an improper reduction of her bonus.
The applicant also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same bonus reduction.
The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the ESA complaint.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that proceeding concurrently would require the parties to address substantially the same issues in two different forums, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.
Insured not precluded from claiming further weekly income benefits after relapse two years post-accident.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until she was released to return to work.
She later suffered a relapse and applied for reinstatement of benefits more than two years after the accident.
The insurer refused, arguing the new claim was time-barred under section 22 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and precluded by sections 12 and 16.
The arbitrator held that section 22 does not apply to a further claim where initial notice was properly given, and that sections 12 and 16 do not permanently terminate eligibility for benefits if the applicant can reestablish disability resulting from the accident.
The insurer's preliminary objection was dismissed.
Board upholds reverse onus in unfair labour practice complaints against Charter challenge.
The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.
The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.
The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.
