Ailsa Jane Wiggins

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction and delay, due to an ongoing civil proceeding.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant case law, that her allegations constituted a series of events, and that a recording of the hearing constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue her case, the recording was not new determinative evidence, and there were no exceptional circumstances outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, age, and disability after being asked to leave a Best Buy store and subsequently being banned from the Eaton Centre by Cadillac Fairview security.

The respondents maintained the applicant was removed due to loud, disruptive, and abusive behaviour.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's age, colour, or disability played any role in the respondents' actions, concluding that the applicant was removed solely for creating a disturbance.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services after a police officer inquired about his mental health during an investigation of a neighbour dispute.

The officer had responded to the applicant's complaint of assault, and the neighbour alleged the applicant was schizophrenic and acting dangerously.

The Tribunal found that the officer's questions about the applicant's mental health were part of a legitimate police investigation to determine if there were grounds for apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The application was dismissed, as the inquiry did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving an earlier human rights complaint and engaged in reprisal.

The applicant claimed the respondents failed to pay pension contributions on time, appointed an inappropriate contact person, breached confidentiality, and failed to provide a Record of Employment and tax receipts.

The Tribunal found that the pension payment was made despite an administrative error, the appointment of the contact person did not violate the settlement, and there was no requirement in the settlement to provide the tax documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no breach of the settlement and no evidence of an intention to retaliate to support the reprisal claim.

The applicant, who suffered from chronic ulcerative colitis, was terminated from her employment as a business manager due to tardiness and absences.

She had not disclosed her disability until a meeting where she was informed of her removal from the position and offered a sales role.

After disclosing her disability and providing medical notes, the employer terminated her employment without inquiring into accommodation options.

The Tribunal found that the employer breached the procedural component of the duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code and awarded the applicant $7,471.59 for lost income and $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, ancestry, disability, place of origin, and race.

Upon termination, the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package of up to six months of salary continuation.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had obtained legal advice, the settlement was not grossly unfair, and there was no evidence of economic duress or unconscionability.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a workplace injury.

After the corporate employer was placed in receivership, the applicant proceeded solely against the respondent plant manager.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was not personally responsible for the alleged discriminatory actions, such as denying a wage increase or withholding pay for lost hours, as these were corporate decisions made by human resources or senior management.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a person of colour of Indo-Caribbean descent, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after he was not shortlisted for a Financial Reporting Officer position at the respondent school board.

He also alleged reprisal in the form of discipline and a request for a medical certificate after filing his human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not shortlisted because he lacked the required professional accounting designation, not because of any discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also found that the discipline was a legitimate response to the applicant's refusal to perform core job duties, and the request for a medical certificate was reasonable under the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former lawyer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

The Tribunal found that the LSUC's investigation and review process constituted a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, even though it did not result in a hearing, because the applicant fully participated and the LSUC thoroughly investigated the identical allegations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent university displayed her failed first-year law school marks on her transcript.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent seeking similar relief, including an injunction.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action was commenced before the application and had not been withdrawn.

The Tribunal also found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1), as the ongoing display of marks constituted a continuing effect rather than a continuing violation.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former car sales representative, alleged that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against by her manager on the basis of sex, marital status, and association, and that she was subjected to reprisal after complaining.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was unsupported by other witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's actions, including setting sales targets, were a legitimate response to the applicant's poor sales performance and were untainted by discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and production of documents, and the respondents requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the respondents had adequate time to prepare and failed to show exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately comply with their disclosure requirements by providing arguably relevant documents, a document list, and detailed witness statements.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that she was sexually harassed by her branch manager during her employment as a telemarketer.

The corporate respondent went into receivership, and the applicant proceeded against the personal respondent alone.

The Tribunal heard conflicting testimony from the applicant, the respondent, and several former co-workers.

Applying established principles for assessing credibility, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a security guard with diabetes, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on disability after she developed a foot infection and could not wear the required steel-toed boots for foot patrols.

The employer offered temporary alternative work at other locations without foot patrols, which the applicant refused due to a longer commute.

The Tribunal found that the employer met its duty to accommodate by offering reasonable alternative work, and that the applicant failed to participate in the accommodation process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability.

Following the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal adjourned the matter due to the applicant's failure to provide full disclosure in a timely manner.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose all remaining documents relating to his long-term disability benefits claim, provide a detailed witness statement setting out all alleged incidents, and produce specific emails referred to by a witness, failing which the Tribunal would take appropriate action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal in the workplace.

During the hearing, several evidentiary issues arose.

The Tribunal ruled that a heavily redacted closure report from a partner abuse program was inadmissible because its author was unavailable to testify.

An academic article on sexual harassment was also excluded as irrelevant hearsay.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to compel the personal respondent's date of birth for a criminal record check, noting that character evidence is generally inadmissible in civil proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of several of the applicant's witnesses, finding their evidence would amount to inadmissible character evidence intended solely to bolster the applicant's credibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application due to the applicant's repeated failure to comply with disclosure rules, a previous interim decision, and Tribunal directions regarding document production and detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately, finding no serious prejudice to the respondents at this stage.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the outstanding documents and detailed witness statements within seven days, failing which the upcoming hearing dates would be cancelled.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her family status regarding her work schedule and terminated her employment because of her family status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not clearly communicate a need for accommodation and that her work hours were not excessive.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant was terminated for performance issues, not due to her family status.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order requiring the applicant to produce documents relating to his application for long-term disability benefits and subsequent litigation.

The applicant stated he was bound by confidentiality provisions and required a Tribunal order to release the information, but otherwise did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents within 14 days.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding the termination of his employment.

He alleged that the respondents provided forged documents and that their lawyer tampered with his witness.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations and concluded that the applicant was merely attempting to restate his case and attack the evidence given at the hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.