Michelle Flaherty

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a coworker, sexually harassed her and harassed her on the basis of disability by smoking near her in the workplace.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's testimony and her prior statements to police, as well as the improbable breadth of her allegations against numerous individuals.

Finding the applicant's evidence unreliable, the Tribunal concluded she failed to meet the burden of proving a violation of the Human Rights Code on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an order to defer consideration of her human rights application pending the outcome of her application for judicial review of an earlier Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no risk of inconsistent decisions since the Tribunal had already ruled on the issues under judicial review, and noting that administrative proceedings should not be delayed by judicial review except in exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her deferred human rights application in order to add two new parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application until a related 2009 application was finally determined in its entirety.

The Tribunal also noted potential limitation period issues regarding the addition of the new parties.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination and harassment against the union and employer respondents.

She argued the Tribunal erred in its application of the duty to investigate sexual harassment, the duty to enforce a smoking policy, and the union's duty to accommodate, and that it misapprehended evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no material factual errors, and that the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate her case.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the determination of a related 2009 application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that while some issues in the 2009 application had been resolved, allegations against a personal respondent remained outstanding.

Because these outstanding allegations gave rise to overlapping issues between the two applications, the Tribunal held it was not appropriate to reactivate the current application until the 2009 application was finally determined in its entirety.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal, against her employer, her union, and several individuals.

She claimed the employer and union failed to enforce a smoking policy to accommodate her asthma, failed to protect her from sexual harassment by a coworker, and reprised against her for raising these issues.

Following the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal assessed whether the claims had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the employer and union respondents, finding no evidence that they failed to address her smoking concerns, failed to respond appropriately to her harassment allegations given her refusal to provide particulars or pursue a complaint, or reprised against her.

The application was permitted to proceed solely against the individual respondent alleged to have committed the sexual harassment.

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

A hearing was scheduled for May 2, 2014.

The applicant's counsel attended, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting until 10:00 a.m. without any communication or explanation from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant, a condominium resident with a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after the respondents refused to accommodate his request to park his oversized truck in an above-ground spot.

The respondents' underground parking garage could not accommodate the truck's height.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The medical evidence did not establish a disability-related need for the specific vehicle, rendering the applicant's choice a personal preference rather than a requirement triggering the duty to accommodate.

The reprisal allegations were also dismissed as speculative and lacking evidence of retaliatory intent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to prospectively extend the one-year limitation period, amend her application to add new reprisal allegations, and obtain an interim remedy to establish ground rules for the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal held that it cannot prospectively extend the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as good faith delay must be assessed on actual facts.

The request to amend was deferred because the main application was already deferred pending another matter.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to show that the balance of harm favoured the remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application regarding a club policy requiring the use of CB radios.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence that could be determinative.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier and that the arguments advanced did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent car club discriminated against her by requiring the use of CB radios on certain tours and failing to accommodate her disability.

She also alleged reprisal after her access to the club's online forum was suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the policy did not differentially impact the applicant as she was always a passenger and her husband could operate the radio.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to collaborate in the accommodation process by not exploring options to install a speaker near her functioning ear.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed, as the suspension was intended to manage a disruptive online discussion rather than retaliate against the applicant for asserting her Code rights.

The applicant, who has a hearing disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal against a recreational car club regarding its CB radio policy and her subsequent suspension from its online message board.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the names of members who orally complained about the applicant's use of the message board, finding this information arguably relevant to her reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for witness statements and document disclosure ahead of the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded him damages for constructive discrimination by the WSIB.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred by not applying tort principles to calculate human rights damages and by not allowing evidence of systemic discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was filed outside the 30-day time limit and that the applicant presented no valid basis for reconsideration, as reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair deficiencies in a party's case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer this application pending the determination of an earlier 2009 application involving similar facts and issues, notably concerning alleged sexual harassment by a personal respondent and a failure to investigate.

Finding significant overlap between the two matters, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions and prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction that refused to waive the implied undertaking rule for certain documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its Rules, reconsideration is only available for final decisions, not preliminary or procedural directions.

The Tribunal also directed that respondents need not respond to further requests from the applicant unless explicitly directed, to prevent unnecessary expense and delay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as moot.

He argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his written submissions, which he had attempted to email but were not received due to a delivery failure.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration to consider the submissions as a matter of procedural fairness.

However, after reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found no basis to vary its original conclusion that the application was moot, as the applicant's allegations of prejudice due to delay were too remote and speculative.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the survivor benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the alleged discrimination did not constitute a series of incidents, but rather a single incident with continuing effects that occurred either upon the applicant's retirement or his subsequent remarriage.

As the application was filed more than a year after these events and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.

Following an interim decision dismissing most allegations, the Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegation—that the employer discriminated by not paying a spread allowance for split shifts worked as a rear door loader—had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the allegation against the employer to proceed, noting that rear door loaders are primarily disabled workers and one of the few categories not receiving the allowance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to negotiate the allowance was based on a discriminatory factor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed the application following a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not identify any new facts, evidence, or other grounds set out in Rule 26.5 to justify a reconsideration, but merely reiterated arguments previously made.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disabilities sometimes prevented him from doing his own banking, forcing him to rely on others.

The Tribunal held that the WSIB's practice of paying benefits by cheque constituted constructive discrimination, as it had an adverse impact on the applicant due to his disability.

The WSIB was ordered to pay $1,800 for financial losses resulting from theft by a person the applicant relied upon, and $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.