Winston Mattis

The grievors, employed as Labour Relations Officers, alleged systemic discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a Labour Relations Specialist position.

The employer brought three preliminary motions to limit the scope of evidence at the hearing.

The Grievance Board granted the employer's first motion, excluding evidence related to a previously settled grievance of another employee.

The Board also granted the second motion, limiting the admissible evidence to events occurring within three years prior to the filing of the grievances.

However, the Board denied the employer's third motion to strike certain particulars for lacking detail, finding that the particulars provided were sufficient for the employer to know the case it had to meet.

The respondents brought a motion for the production of the entire contents of a closed Ontario Human Rights Commission file pertaining to a separate complaint made by the complainant against a different contractor.

The Commission had previously decided not to refer that complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code to order the production of a closed, unreferred file.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the information in the closed file met the Wigmore test for privilege and ought to remain confidential to protect the integrity of the Commission's investigation and settlement processes.

The applicants sought urgent judicial review of an interim order by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that required them to call ten specific witnesses and produce will-say statements for them.

The Tribunal had amended the complaint mid-hearing and ordered the applicants to call these witnesses to bridge the evidentiary gap.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, holding that the Tribunal's inquisitorial approach breached natural justice and procedural fairness by depriving the applicants of their right to control their own defence in an adversarial proceeding.

The Tribunal heard several procedural motions regarding the examination of witnesses and disclosure of documents following an order permitting the Commission to amend the complaint to include allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal provided specific directions on which party would lead the examination of various witnesses, including union employees, police officers, and contractors.

The Tribunal also ordered that all documents related to the reprisal allegations be disclosed forthwith, ruled that undisclosed documents could not be introduced during cross-examination, required privileged documents to be categorized, and determined that new allegations raised in testimony would only be considered for credibility purposes.

During a hearing on the merits of a human rights complaint, the complainant testified that his income had declined due to alleged reprisals by the respondents.

The respondents brought a motion seeking an order directing the complainant to produce his tax returns and authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to release his tax records from 1995 to 2004.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the tax records were arguably relevant to the complainant's allegations of improper interference with his ability to earn an income, and ordered the complainant to execute the necessary authorization and produce his 2004 tax return.

The applicant filed applications alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the union and employer engaged in intimidation and coercion regarding a settlement agreement that resulted in his resignation.

The Board dismissed the section 76 application on a preliminary motion for failing to state a prima facie case, as there was no evidence the applicant ceased to be a union member.

Following a consultation, the Board dismissed the section 74 application, finding the applicant voluntarily executed a binding settlement agreement and the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.