6 total
Judicial review of human rights complaint dismissal denied; Commission's screening decision was not patently unreasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissing her human rights complaint without a hearing.
The applicant alleged her former employer failed to accommodate her disability before terminating her employment.
The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction and expertise.
The court concluded that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidentiary record, which indicated the employer had accommodated the applicant and that she was not interested in returning to her previous employment.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Board declined to interfere with employer's assignment of tank installation work as all jurisdictional factors were neutral.
The Sheet Metal Workers applied for a determination concerning a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding the installation of wine tanks at a project in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
The employer, E.S. Fox Limited, had assigned the work to the Sheet Metal Workers.
The U.A. Local 666 and the Boilermakers argued the work should have been assigned to their members in accordance with a trade agreement (INFO-67).
The Board assessed the typical factors for jurisdictional disputes, including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, area practice, and trade agreements.
Finding that all factors were neutral and no single factor strongly favoured any one trade, the Board declined to interfere with the employer's original assignment of the work to the Sheet Metal Workers.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably concluded grievance over work assignment lacked merit.
The complainant, a structural steelfitter's helper, was assigned sweeping duties upon returning to work.
He objected to the assignment, considering it a constructive demotion, and was eventually discharged for refusing to sweep.
The union assisted him in filing a discharge grievance and attempted to negotiate his reinstatement, but the complainant refused to return if it meant sweeping.
The union membership subsequently voted against taking the grievance to arbitration.
The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, which had reasonably concluded the employer was within its rights to assign the work.
Preliminary objections dismissed; human rights code applies to pre-existing insurance contracts and father has standing.
The respondent insurance company brought preliminary objections to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in automobile insurance rates.
The complainant, a father, alleged he was charged higher premiums to insure his 16-year-old son than he would have been for a female child, contrary to the Human Rights Code, 1981.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the insurance contract predated the Code's proclamation, and that the father lacked standing because the alleged discrimination was based on his son's sex and age, not his own.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the objections, finding that the Code applies prospectively to ongoing discriminatory acts and that its remedial nature rebuts any presumption against retrospectivity.
The Board also held that the father had standing to complain of discrimination based on his 'family status' as the parent of a male child.
Board resolves employee status dispute in certification application and defers related employer determination.
In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of five individuals on the employer's list of employees.
A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the dispute.
The employer failed to call a witness before the officer but sought to call the witness before the Board.
The Board, by majority, allowed the witness to testify.
Based on the evidence, the Board concluded that two of the challenged individuals were construction labourers employed on the application date, while the other three were not.
The Board deferred the determination of the identity of the true employer and the related employer application, directing the matter to be relisted for hearing.
Third parties with only a commercial interest are not entitled to intervene in a section 112a grievance referral.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to apply the province-wide excavation collective agreement.
At the hearing, the employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that it was bound by a different 'road builders' agreement and that other employers and unions bound by that agreement were entitled to notice of the proceedings because the Board's interpretation might affect them commercially.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that strangers to a collective agreement are not entitled as of right to intervene in a section 112a proceeding, and declined to exercise its discretion to add them, as doing so would needlessly encumber the grievance process.
