Alan G. Smith

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the allegations were resolved by a prior grievance settlement.

The applicant's union, OPSEU, requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status, noting its significant interest in the allegations and potential impact on its members.

The Tribunal also directed a teleconference hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that all personal respondents be removed as parties to the human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The applicant did not object to the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was alleged to be liable for the same conduct, there was no issue regarding its ability to respond or remedy the alleged infringement, and no compelling reason existed to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The Tribunal ordered the personal respondents removed as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process initiated by the applicant under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The respondent supported the deferral, noting the grievances were based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, finding considerable factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to correct the date of an alleged incident from April 2004 to April 2001.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response, noting no submissions regarding prejudice were received.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent was previously deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the application was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, the applicant's supervisor, from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions, which were alleged to have occurred within the scope of his employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party, noting the central allegation involved a remark by another employee not named as a party.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment, specifically regarding the denial of overtime opportunities.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a workplace grievance dealing with the same issue had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication, given the considerable factual overlap and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the application alleged a failure to comply with a final decision rather than a breach of Minutes of Settlement, and directed the applicant to clarify his intentions.

When the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a black female of African origin, alleged that her employment was terminated on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent terminated both the applicant and a Caucasian co-worker following a serious incident where an autistic individual under their care went missing.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant's allegations were based entirely on unsupported suspicion and speculation without any evidence linking the termination to Code-related factors, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the parties.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to deliver a $9,000 settlement cheque within the agreed two-week timeframe.

The cheque was delivered six days late.

The Tribunal found that the respondent fulfilled its obligations and the short delay amounted to a trivial breach that caused no harm beyond minor inconvenience.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after resigning from her employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a realistic alternative to signing the release and was not under economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin against multiple former employers.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations of discrimination based on unsupported suspicion and speculation, with no direct or circumstantial evidence linking her terminations or lack of promotion to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and reprisal by the employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim dealing with similar reprisal issues.

Finding that the remedies available under both statutes are similar and that deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the final conclusion of the Employment Standards Act proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, as the key issues in the grievances overlapped considerably with the application.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued she was experiencing depression when she signed the release and that her status as a human resources professional should not imply she understood the release.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the depression claim was not raised earlier and the request was an attempt to re-argue the case.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment due to reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a workplace grievance arbitration process.

The arbitration process concluded with a settlement agreement.

As the respondents did not oppose the request, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that the applicant had answered 'No' to whether he was discriminated against because of a conviction.

The applicant's submissions confirmed that his termination was unrelated to a conviction for an offence under federal or provincial law, and he argued the Tribunal should protect individuals who do not fall into specific categories.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within the prohibited grounds of the Human Rights Code and were therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837, filed a request to intervene to protect the integrity of the collective agreement.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its established practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's human rights application absent exceptional circumstances.