Michelle Flaherty

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.

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.

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.

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 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 requested that he and his witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone conference call at the upcoming hearing due to the expense and inconvenience of travelling from British Columbia to Ottawa.

The respondent objected, arguing that credibility was a central issue and live evidence was essential.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant and his girlfriend, finding that their presence was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the Tribunal to fairly assess credibility.

The Tribunal deferred its decision regarding a third witness until detailed statements of fact were exchanged.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, specifically related to her pregnancies and subsequent leaves.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove several personal respondents from the application.

The applicant consented to the removal of two respondents but opposed the removal of two others, Jarrett and Melanson.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the remaining personal respondents, finding that their alleged conduct fell within the normal course of their employment and that the corporate respondent had accepted liability for their actions should discrimination be found.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application did not appear to identify any specific acts of discrimination, and directed the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

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

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and did not explicitly mention human rights claims.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion of the will amounting to duress and held that the broad language of the release barred the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The individual respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a grievance settlement and a complaint to the Ontario College of Teachers had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance dealt with disciplinary measures rather than human rights issues, and the applicant was not a party to it.

Furthermore, the College of Teachers did not make findings on whether the respondent's comments were discriminatory within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued that the summary hearing process was unfair, that the Tribunal ignored relevant case law, and that the decision conflicted with privacy legislation.

The Tribunal found that the summary hearing process was consistent with its Rules of Procedure and that the applicant had the opportunity to present her evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish any compelling or extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration and denied the request.

The respondent sought the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior criminal proceeding.

The applicant had previously laid a private information against the respondent for criminal harassment, but the Crown ultimately withdrew the charges.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the criminal process did not afford the applicant a full and fair opportunity to have her human rights claim considered by an adjudicator with jurisdiction to apply the Code.

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

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's executor requesting written submissions and confirmation of status, but received no response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The corporate and individual respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondent, a human resources director, from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individual respondent's actions, which were alleged to have occurred in the normal course of his employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent and ordered him removed as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent, acting as the claims manager for her employer's short-term disability plan, recommended terminating her benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent treated the applicant differently based on her disability (major depression), noting that the recommendation to terminate benefits was based on her failure to communicate and provide updated medical information.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

A telephone conference hearing was scheduled to address the request.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of colour, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal, after being removed from a hospital auxiliary fundraising gala after-party.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable basis to infer that the decision to remove the applicant was connected to a prohibited ground or constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application as an abuse of process due to a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant argued that the respondent did not comply with the settlement and that her application raised reprisal allegations not covered by her grievances.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated arguments already addressed in the interim decision and presented no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer due to an ongoing Employment Standards Act (ESA) matter.

The respondents requested deferral pending the appeal period of the ESA officer's decision.

The applicant confirmed she had not appealed the ESA decision.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer the application.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding its jurisdiction, as the corporate respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that her prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint was a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, the ESA officer's decision focused on reprisal for taking statutory leaves and did not address the broader allegations of discrimination based on sex and pregnancy, including alleged disparaging remarks.

The request for early dismissal was denied.