Brian Sheehan

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate his disability and workplace harassment following a workplace reorganization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues were substantively resolved through settlements and an arbitration decision in the prior proceeding, and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as they had not been addressed in the grievance process.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age, after the employer inquired about employees' ages to determine health benefit premiums.

The respondents failed to file Responses and did not participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the termination was due in part to the applicant's age, violating section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $6,112 for lost wages and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 25.5.

The applicant sought to introduce new medical evidence but failed to explain why it could not have been obtained earlier.

The applicant also failed to demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent's Blackberry smart phones were not fully accessible to blind users out of the box, denying him equal access to goods and services.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion asserting that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent is a federally regulated enterprise.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that telecommunications, including wireless telecommunications and the terminal equipment integrated with them, fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a related wrongful dismissal action.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, noting that the civil action involved an almost identical fact scenario, raised the potential for overlapping remedies, and had already reached an advanced stage of litigation.

The applicant, an adult student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability after being demitted from school following a verbal altercation with staff.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claimed learning disability was not connected to the behaviour that led to her being demitted, and the school board had been willing to discuss accommodation prior to the altercation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for failing to disclose a factual basis for discrimination.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the Tribunal's early dismissal conflicted with established procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely resubmitted previous arguments, failed to identify any determinative new evidence, and that the early dismissal was consistent with the Tribunal's discretionary power to ensure fair and expeditious resolution.