3 total
Human rights application partially dismissed for delay; recent allegation of discrimination allowed to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her volunteer work based on disability, age, and reprisal.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a November 2010 ban from the respondent's premises due to delay, finding no good faith reason for the late filing.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a June 2013 ban from a volunteer tent to proceed, as the applicant might establish a link to her disability.
Several individual and organizational respondents were removed from the application due to a lack of supporting facts.
Tribunal partially excludes evidence under s. 45.1 of the Code due to prior grievance settlement.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and age regarding a work location transfer.
In a case management conference, the respondent sought to exclude portions of the applicant's anticipated evidence, arguing the issues were resolved in a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) settlement.
The Tribunal ruled that evidence regarding the HR advisor's actions was admissible as it was unrelated to the GSB grievances.
However, evidence regarding alleged misrepresentations about severance pay was dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as it was appropriately dealt with by the GSB settlement.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to unexplained 18-month delay causing prejudice to union.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its handling of her workplace accommodation in 1994 and 1995.
The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay, noting the applicant waited 18 months after the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to hear her related complaint on the basis that it belonged before the Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted the union's motion and dismissed the application, finding the 18-month delay was substantial, the applicant's reliance on her former counsel's advice was not a satisfactory explanation, and the union would be significantly prejudiced in defending against allegations concerning events from six years prior.