Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination in employment and breach of Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant argued the Tribunal refused to consider allegations related to 2009 Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant presented no new facts, evidence, or other basis under Rule 25.5 to justify reconsideration, and merely reiterated arguments already addressed.

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

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

Despite updating his mailing address, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions by the specified deadlines.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services or facilities.

He subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to include the social area of employment, stating he was a volunteer for the respondent soccer club.

The respondents did not file a Response to the Request despite being granted extensions of time.

The Tribunal granted the Request, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time to comply with a previous Case Assessment Direction regarding statements of fact and clarifying its position on undue hardship.

The applicants consented to the extension regarding the statements of fact but opposed the extension regarding the undue hardship position.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline for both matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's refusal to fund in vitro fertilization treatments.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the application pending the determination of a Lead Case raising substantially similar issues.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in accommodation.

The Tribunal previously deferred the applications pending a Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

After the Board rendered its decision, the applicants sought to reactivate their applications.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to advise whether they wished to proceed and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicants failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the required timeframe, and the applications were dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was dismissed from her employment because of her pregnancy.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been dealt with under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

An ESA officer had previously found the respondent dismissed the applicant due to her pregnancy and ordered the respondent to pay $30,576.94, which was paid.

The applicant consented to the dismissal of her human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on several grounds, including failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

She named her employers, a manager, and Dr. Raynor, a physician who evaluated her for the WSIB, as respondents.

Dr. Raynor sought early dismissal of the application against him, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations against Dr. Raynor pertained to unfairness and bias, but did not link this treatment to any Code-protected ground.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application against Dr. Raynor for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file a Form 23 confirming service, and the respondent failed to file a response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file a Form 23 within ten days and warning the respondent that failure to file a response within twenty days of the Form 23 filing could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after three days of hearing.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal only on the condition that the applicant undertake not to pursue a civil action related to his employment termination.

The Tribunal declined to impose the requested conditions, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to set parameters over matters before the civil courts, and permitted the application to be withdrawn without terms.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her dismissal.

The respondents argued the application was untimely.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to trauma and depression, providing medical notes.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant had pursued a WSIB claim during the same period and the medical evidence did not establish an inability to file the application on time.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and record of offences.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding where an officer concluded the applicant had resigned.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she wishes to make oral or written submissions on the respondent's request for early dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and citizenship, arising from the respondent's application of ITAR regulations which restricted his access to controlled goods.

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

The Tribunal declined to strike the applicant's Notice of Constitutional Question at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, with the scope to be determined, and granted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association limited intervenor status to address whether the application of ITAR constitutes discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also set timelines for responding to a request for production and for submissions regarding a proposed witness.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment brought a motion seeking production of documents from a Crown brief detailing approximately 50 prior criminal investigations involving the applicant.

The Tribunal had previously found the documents arguably relevant.

Following a telephone conference, the parties agreed to a procedure to notify the Crown and the Toronto Police Services to obtain their positions on the proposed disclosure in accordance with the Wagg screening process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and reprisal.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal requested submissions on its jurisdiction, as the corporate respondent appeared to be federally regulated.

The respondents confirmed the corporate respondent is provincially-regulated and did not contest jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction over the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of colour and ethnic origin after he was not hired for teaching positions in the respondent's Department of Mathematics.

He also alleged that the respondent breached a 2005 Minutes of Settlement and discriminated against him in three other interactions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent provided a plausible, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision based on the superior qualifications of the successful candidates.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the settlement agreement and no discrimination in the other incidents.

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

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to file her documents on time and subsequently requested an extension of time to respond to the respondents' submissions and to obtain legal assistance.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time.

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

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the corporate respondent's legal counsel as a personal respondent.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the counsel's actions and there were no specific allegations against him.

The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.

The complainant, a Falun Gong practitioner, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services because of her creed by making discriminatory comments and excluding her from membership in the Ottawa Chinese Senior Association.

The Tribunal found that Falun Gong is a 'creed' and that the Association provides a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents breached the Code by revoking the complainant's membership because of her creed and by making discriminatory comments.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to invite the complainant to rejoin the Association.

The applicants sought disclosure of documents relating to the respondent's consideration of an expert report on infertility.

The respondent claimed public interest immunity over the documents, arguing they were generated during an ongoing policy development process.

The Tribunal found that the documents were arguably relevant but concluded it was premature to determine the public interest immunity claim.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to clarify its position on undue hardship and certain factual conclusions before the balancing of public interests could be properly assessed.