Michelle Flaherty

La requérante allègue avoir été victime de discrimination fondée sur le handicap par son employeur et que son syndicat a abandonné son grief.

Les intimés demandent le rejet sommaire de la requête, arguant que le grief a été réglé en médiation et que les allégations contre le syndicat ne soulèvent aucune question liée au Code.

Le Tribunal émet des directives pour permettre à la requérante de présenter des observations orales sur ces questions préliminaires avant de statuer sur la demande de rejet.

The applicants, most of whom are Raeliens, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after the respondent pub refused to allow them to host a 'mini-lecture' and asked them to leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate business reasons for refusing to host the widely-publicized event, as it had not consented to the publicity and was concerned about disruption.

However, the Tribunal found that the General Manager's comment that the pub did not want to be associated with their 'cult' constituted discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $100 to each applicant for injury to dignity and to require its managerial staff to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and creed regarding a monument erected on Catholic church property by the respondent.

The monument bore an inscription praying for life 'from conception until natural death,' which the applicant argued was an offensive and discriminatory anti-abortion message.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the inscription was an expression of religious belief and did not constitute a 'service' or 'facility' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code, noting that the Code must be interpreted in light of the Charter's protection of freedom of religion.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its key witnesses was on medical leave and unable to work.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the hearing could begin without the witness and that further direction regarding the witness's evidence could be provided at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her disability was a factor in her termination.

The respondent denied the allegations and requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB claim.

The Tribunal noted it may defer an application if there is an ongoing proceeding based on the same facts, or dismiss it under section 45.1 if the WSIB has already dealt with the substance.

As the status of the WSIB matter was unclear, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions and documentation regarding the WSIB claim's status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the timeliness of the application before addressing other preliminary issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his request for interim remedies in a human rights application alleging workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and reprisals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that the interim decision was not a final decision of the proceeding.

Furthermore, the new medical note provided by the applicant was not determinative, and no conflicting jurisprudence or procedure was identified.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing three weeks prior to the date, citing prohibitive travel costs from Edmonton and teaching responsibilities.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that the hearing had been scheduled months in advance and the reasons provided did not constitute extraordinary circumstances required for a late adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the disclosure of the full names and last known coordinates of two potential witnesses employed by a third party, Cornerstone Restaurant.

The applicant alleged the respondent contacted these witnesses regarding the incidents giving rise to the application.

The third party did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal found the evidence arguably relevant and ordered the third party to disclose the requested information.

The applicant, a retail employee with a back disability, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had accommodated the applicant's disability for several years by placing her in a cashier-only position, but unilaterally withdrew this accommodation in 2009 and required her to perform the full duties of a sales associate.

The Tribunal held that the respondent breached both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The allegations of age discrimination, record of offences discrimination, and reprisal were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of a human rights application alleging the removal of special education services in 2003 (Issue B).

The Tribunal previously found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had dismissed an earlier complaint regarding a 2001 failure to accommodate (Issue A) because the applicant failed to cooperate by providing updated medical assessments.

The Tribunal held it would be an abuse of process to proceed with Issue B unless the applicant could show she provided new assessment information to the respondent.

Finding that the applicant's 2004 medical letter merely restated her refusal to undergo a new assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already determined by the Commission.

The portions of the application relating to Issue B were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the full names and last known coordinates of two potential witnesses employed by the respondent.

The respondent did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to disclose the information within two days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being denied promotions in 2005, 2007, and 2009.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the three job competitions did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant's delay in filing regarding the 2005 and 2007 incidents was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2005 and 2007, but allowed the allegations relating to the 2009 incident to proceed as they were filed within the limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) in its adjudicative process and decisions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the majority of the allegations for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the content and results of statutory decision-making are not 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the sole allegation that WSIAT failed to fund child care for the applicant to attend her hearing.

The remaining portion of the application was deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's reconsideration request before the WSIAT.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability in the termination of his employment.

Following a mediation, the applicant and two respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a successor employer determination before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the OLRB matter regarding the potential liability of some respondents.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and record of offences in employment, more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to trauma and depression.

The Tribunal found it could not determine the issue of good faith delay or substantial prejudice based solely on the applicant's submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be delivered to the respondents for their submissions on the delay issue before making a final determination.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a telephone hearing.

She claimed she did not receive the Notice of Hearing and waited by her phone expecting the Tribunal to call her.

The Tribunal found that although she received notice of the hearing from the respondents shortly before the date, her genuine misunderstanding of the procedure and prompt action upon learning of the dismissal constituted factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the hearing rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police officers across several incidents between 2007 and 2010.

The respondent officers brought a request to dismiss the allegations relating to the 2007 and 2008 incidents, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding it could not determine whether the incidents constituted a series of events without the benefit of documents the applicant was seeking to obtain through ongoing Youth Criminal Justice Act proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and reprisals.

Following his termination, he requested interim remedies including reinstatement and retroactive pay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the heavy burden under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as he did not demonstrate that the application appeared well-founded or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim remedies.

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in employment, the parties filed requests for interim orders regarding document production.

The respondent sought production of documents from third-party real estate brokerages to show the applicant was actively employed while receiving short-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The applicant sought particulars regarding documents over which the respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal held that Rule 16 requires parties to provide sufficient information to allow the opposing party to evaluate the privilege claim, and ordered both parties to exchange specific details about the number, timing, and nature of the privileged documents.