David Shannon

The applicant, who has epilepsy, suffered a seizure at work.

After recovering, he wished to go home with a co-worker, as he had done in the past.

The plant nurse, however, called security and paramedics, who physically restrained the applicant at the exit turnstile in front of co-workers.

The police were also called, handcuffed him, and took him to the hospital where he was released.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The respondent failed to make meaningful inquiries into his needs and ignored his own knowledge of his condition.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a student support worker and legal guardian of a troubled student at the same school, alleged that the school board discriminated against him on the basis of family status when it terminated his contract.

The school board maintained that the applicant was terminated because he inappropriately used his paid work hours to advocate for his ward, creating a conflict of interest and disrupting staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no clear link between the applicant's family status and his termination, as the dismissal resulted from his inability to separate his role as an employee from his role as a parent during school hours.

The applicant, a Town Councilor with a hearing impairment, alleged that the Town of Cochrane and its Mayor discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested a speaker system after ear buds proved insufficient, and used a tape recorder to review meetings.

The respondents confiscated the tape recorder and failed to install a speaker system.

The Tribunal found that the Town failed to meet its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability up to the point of undue hardship.

The Town was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages and review its accommodation policies.

The application against the Mayor personally was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on the respondent's failure to appropriately accommodate his disability arising from a 2001 workplace injury.

After being placed in a permanent position that proved beyond his functional limitations, the applicant claimed he was forced to retire, amounting to constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent fulfilled both the procedural and substantive components of its duty to accommodate by conducting extensive job searches and offering a suitable alternative position, which the applicant refused for strategic reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and place of origin after his application to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's Re-Entry Program for retraining in General Surgery was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the respondent evaluated the application using objective criteria, such as prior service in underserviced communities and physician supply projections, which were applied consistently to all applicants.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant's age or place of origin factored into the respondent's decision, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former sessional lecturer at Georgian College, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, place of origin, and race, as well as reprisal, after he was unsuccessful in a job competition for a full-time professor position.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subjected to differential treatment during his employment and that the hiring process was based on objective criteria, with the successful candidate performing better in the interview and mock teaching assignment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that the College followed its internal procedures appropriately when investigating his internal human rights complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and union following the termination of his employment and a subsequent grievance settlement.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding the grievance settlement and release appropriately dealt with those allegations.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application against the union to proceed, as the allegations of discrimination by the union were not addressed in the grievance process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for breach of settlement, noting section 45.9 only applies to settlements of human rights applications.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application for failure to state a prima facie case and failure to disclose documents.

The self-represented applicant explained she misunderstood her production obligations, believing her former counsel or the respondents' insurer had provided the medical documents.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation and declined to dismiss the application for non-compliance, instead ordering the applicant to produce the required documents by a specified date.

The motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case was deferred as premature until the documents were produced.

The applicant, a university professor, received a threatening and sexually harassing email from an unknown sender while seven months pregnant.

She alleged the respondent university failed to adequately investigate and respond to the incident.

The Tribunal found that while the university met its substantive obligations by responding promptly and providing a safe work environment, it breached its procedural obligations under the Human Rights Code by failing to maintain communication with the applicant and lacking adequate policies and training for such incidents.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus $1,950 for ongoing counselling.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability during an apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The respondent police service and officer brought a request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a public complaint investigation under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the PSA investigation reviewed allegations of excessive force and inappropriate language, it did not consider or resolve the substance of the applicant's allegations of disability-based discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance by his housing provider.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Rental Housing Tribunal (RHT).

The adjudicator found that the RHT had previously considered the exact same factual allegations and applied the Code's definition of harassment, concluding the incident was merely an exchange of bad manners.

Finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The applicant had previously taken medical leaves but had returned to full-time work without requesting further accommodation.

The respondent terminated the applicant for cause after discovering he had made unauthorized loans to subordinate employees using company equipment, violating multiple workplace policies.

The Tribunal applied the social model of disability and found the applicant did not have an actual disability at the time of termination, nor did the respondent perceive him to have one.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that police officers harassed him based on his disability during traffic stops.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a Police Services Act investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation focused on Highway Traffic Act authority and explicitly avoided addressing whether the Code was violated.

The Tribunal also denied the self-represented applicant's renewed request for an adjournment, as he failed to provide medical documentation supporting his claim that his disabilities precluded him from proceeding.

The applicant alleged she experienced discrimination based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and colour when she was cut from the university's varsity women's ice hockey team.

The Tribunal found that the coach's decisions, including suggesting the applicant play field hockey, missing a summer meeting, and cutting her from the team, were based on objective criteria such as the applicant's hockey skills and physical development, rather than discriminatory motives.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (Parkinson's disease) and failure to accommodate.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the applicant provided illegible handwritten medical notes and failed to provide a required medical report.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the applicant to provide legible copies of the medical notes to the Tribunal, with the respondents to bear the cost of production.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application.

The respondents requested a dismissal on the basis of abandonment and abuse of process.

The adjudicator granted the dismissal.

A late email requesting an adjournment was subsequently discovered, but the adjudicator declined to reconsider the dismissal, noting the lack of exceptional circumstances and the applicant's failure to follow case management directions.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, the respondents sought production of unredacted medical records from the applicant's treating neurologist.

The applicant had previously provided redacted records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the unredacted clinical notes and records, and to request a full consultation report from the neurologist regarding the applicant's ability to work in an accommodated workplace.

The hearing was adjourned to allow for production and potential independent medical assessments.

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

She also commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice seeking damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code based on the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding sought remedies for the alleged Code infringement and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of their human rights application.

The respondent attended and brought a motion to dismiss the application as deemed abandoned.

After confirming the applicant had not contacted the Tribunal to explain their absence, the adjudicator granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who self-identifies as heterosexual, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent, an HIV/AIDS organization, discriminated against him and other heterosexuals by being homocentric and excluding them from its services.

At a case resolution conference, after hearing the applicant's oral evidence, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The adjudicator found that the respondent's targeted programs for vulnerable populations did not exclude heterosexuals from its general services, and the applicant admitted he had always felt welcomed by the organization.

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.