Eli Fellman

The applicant, a mobile security guard, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability, specifically his need for time off for surgery.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to restructuring and performance issues, and denied knowledge of the surgery request.

The Tribunal found that the Division Manager was likely aware of the surgery request prior to the termination and that it was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was tainted by discrimination and awarded the applicant $7,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision almost five months after it was issued, well beyond the 30-day deadline.

The applicant argued the delay was due to not realizing he had the option to request a reconsideration and experiencing headaches from paperwork.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law or misunderstanding the process does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay.

The request was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed by the respondent police service.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as there was no new evidence, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no matter of general or public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on creed.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application because the alleged incidents occurred outside the mandatory one-year limitation period.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing the Tribunal failed to consider the impact of a statement made by the respondent in a previous proceeding and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5, as the impact of the statement was not relevant to whether it constituted discrimination based on creed, and the matter did not involve an issue of general or public importance.

The respondents requested an order removing two personal respondents as parties and an order for particulars regarding various allegations in the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of the two personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars for several general allegations of discrimination and harassment, finding that the respondents were entitled to further details to fully understand the allegations and prepare their case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability by her employer, Sheridan College, and several personal respondents.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as their alleged conduct occurred within the course of their employment and the corporate respondent would be liable for any proven Code breaches.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name to FCA Canada Inc., found the issue of deferral moot as the related union grievance was withdrawn, denied the applicant's request to add eleven individuals as personal respondents because there was no compelling reason to do so, and denied the request for early document production as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed by her landlord and a security company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the only incident within the limitation period—a statement in a response to a previous application—did not constitute discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the application was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant was aware of her rights and had filed a previous application regarding the same underlying incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed by the respondent police service, arising from an incident in December 2012 and a statement in a 2014 response to a previous application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 statement did not constitute a discriminatory event and could not form part of a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a proceeding at the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The applicant provided a letter stating she did not intend to raise a Code challenge at the SBT, but the respondent's counsel advised that the applicant's SBT counsel intended to challenge the 'spouse' provisions of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act under the Code.

The Tribunal found that material facts had not changed and that deferral remained appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The request to re-activate was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability and creed.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (the Vice-President of Human Resources and the store manager), while the applicant requested the addition of his direct supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents and denied the applicant's request to add the supervisor, finding that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the actions of its employees and there was no compelling reason to name the individuals personally.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability during an investigation into his complaints of workplace harassment and abuse.

The applicant had previously filed a grievance under the Public Service of Ontario Act regarding the harassment and abuse, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial factual overlap between the grievance and the human rights application and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that deemed her human rights application abandoned after she missed a deadline to submit an Employment Standards Act decision.

The applicant provided medical evidence indicating she suffered from a concussion and kidney infections, which prevented her from meeting the deadline.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence sufficiently compelling to justify the delay and noted the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the application was reactivated.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to file a response to a request to dismiss.

The Tribunal found that due to an administrative error, the applicant did not receive the email advising him of the extended deadline to file his response.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding the applicant was entitled to notice but did not receive it through no fault of his own.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his claim of discrimination on the basis of disability for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the respondent's illegal termination caused him to develop panic attacks and chronic anxiety.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue a position already considered, and reiterated that post-employment disability cannot form the basis of a discrimination claim regarding the termination itself.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim before the Ontario Labour Relations Board raising similar facts and seeking similar remedies.

Finding considerable overlap and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a request to add his employer, the organizational respondent, to the application.

As the applicant did not object, the Tribunal amended the application to add the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal deferred other preliminary requests, including removal of the personal respondent and dismissal for delay, pending a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, pending the completion of a parallel civil action between the parties.

The civil action concerned the employer's vicarious liability for a co-worker's misconduct, which allegedly caused the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings did not address the same allegations and there was little risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging reprisal in employment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA process was another proceeding, it did not address the human rights allegations regarding late paycheques and inappropriate comments.

Therefore, the request to dismiss under section 45.1 was denied.

However, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application has no reasonable prospect of success, noting that the alleged inappropriate behaviour is not a prohibited ground and the reprisal allegations may lack a connection to Code-protected rights.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a Provincial Court Judge discriminated against him on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability during his trial and sentencing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Finding that the allegations related entirely to the judge's conduct in her adjudicative capacity, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.