Michelle Flaherty

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of their intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment of the application.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent does not offer direct deposit.

A summary hearing was scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment because he could not obtain and disclose documents 14 days in advance.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request because disclosure obligations do not apply to summary hearings under Rule 19A.2.

The respondent in a sexual harassment application requested the production of a Crown Brief containing police records of approximately 50 other criminal investigations involving the applicant, many of a sexual nature.

Following a determination that the documents were arguably relevant, the Crown, the Toronto Police Services, and the applicant consented to their production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the Crown Brief subject to specific redactions and strict confidentiality conditions.

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

The Tribunal previously adjourned the application, noting it could be dismissed as abandoned if no party requested it proceed within a year.

After the deadline passed with no request, the Tribunal contacted the applicant and her counsel, who failed to respond.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

He requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance and a proceeding under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because of internal employer policies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the jurisdictional issue was already before the CHRC and that internal policies are not a basis for dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance proceeding, or dismissed on the basis that the grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, or dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the grievance was no longer ongoing and had not appropriately dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for delay on a preliminary basis, as the timeliness issue was closely related to the merits of the allegations.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of their intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session and failing to respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal filed requests to add additional respondents, amend her application, and obtain production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to add respondents and amend the application, finding insufficient connection to the original allegations, significant delay, and potential prejudice given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request for production in part, ordering the disclosure of arguably relevant documents relating to the termination of the applicant's union membership, workplace policies, and her prior complaints.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision staying the proceeding due to the respondent's bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay was lifted or if other steps were taken to proceed.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant, who is deceased, had an application filed on his behalf by an individual claiming to be in charge of his estate.

The Tribunal repeatedly directed the individual to confirm her status as Estate Trustee or advise if she intended to seek appointment as estate administrator.

After failing to respond to the Tribunal's directions and warnings, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response despite being sent two Notices of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without its participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response and explain the delay before proceeding under Rule 5.5.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress because she needed her record of employment to access employment insurance.

The Tribunal found that while withholding the record of employment constituted illegitimate pressure, the applicant failed to establish coercion of the will, noting she had successfully renegotiated her severance package without raising the record of employment issue.

The Tribunal concluded the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of education services.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant's next friend to consent to the respondent's use of the Ontario Student Record (OSR) or face a potential abuse of process dismissal.

After initially refusing and proposing conditions, the next friend provided the required consent.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing on the abuse of process issue and set out the next steps for amending pleadings and exchanging documents.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and sex.

Two of the applicants requested to withdraw their applications, and the respondent requested, on consent, to defer the remaining two applications.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of the two applications and held the remaining two in abeyance until April 12, 2012.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings asking the adjudicator to recuse herself, alleging that various procedural rulings favoured the respondent and demonstrated bias.

The adjudicator reviewed the history of the proceedings, including rulings on expert witnesses, document disclosure, and scheduling.

Applying the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's disagreement with procedural decisions did not establish bias.

The request for recusal was dismissed.