Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the school board provides education services to students, not to parents, and therefore the matter does not fall under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to hear oral submissions on the jurisdictional issue before making a final determination.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a settlement agreement following his termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed the release, which specifically contemplated the Human Rights Code, and there was no evidence of duress.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicants, members of the Raelian Church of Canada, alleged that the respondent school board terminated their service contracts because of their creed.

The parties consented to mediation-arbitration and asked the Tribunal to determine the issue of discrimination based on written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicants by terminating their service contracts because of their creed, contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding remedies.

The respondent filed a motion for an order compelling the applicant to produce the original copy of her 2003-2004 school agenda for inspection.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing she had already provided photocopies of certain pages and was willing to provide the original to the Tribunal, but not to the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the entire agenda was arguably relevant and ordered the applicant to provide the original agenda to the respondent's representative for a two-day inspection period.

The respondent school board requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of special education services.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a 2004 injury as an abuse of process, finding that a prior court decision in a defamation action had already concluded the applicant was not injured.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss allegations regarding a 2005 disciplinary incident, as it had not been adjudicated by the court.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether allegations regarding the removal of services in 2003 constituted an abuse of process, pending further evidence on whether the applicant had cooperated in the accommodation process.

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 requested an order to consolidate her application with four already consolidated applications proceeding as a Lead Case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that adding a fifth case would complicate and lengthen the proceedings, and that the existing Lead Case already covered a range of biomedical conditions causing infertility.

The Tribunal set a schedule for submissions on whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the Lead Case.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and sex due to the respondent's refusal to fund in vitro fertilization treatments.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed that the four consolidated applications proceed as a Lead Case.

The Tribunal also established a timetable for the respondent to complete disclosure of arguably relevant documents and for the parties to address disputes over documents for which the respondent claimed privilege.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The applicant claimed she did not receive notice of the hearing because she had moved and not updated her mailing address, though she had requested communication by email.

The Tribunal found that while the failure to receive notice was the applicant's fault for not updating her address, it was appropriate to grant reconsideration because neither party had attended the hearing, the applicant acted promptly upon receiving the dismissal decision by email, and she clearly did not intend to abandon the application.

The reconsideration was granted and a new hearing was ordered.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed approximately three months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because the decision letter did not explain the reconsideration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the delay unjustified as the applicant could have consulted the Rules, and further noted that the applicant failed to provide any valid substantive basis for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

She argued that new x-ray evidence establishing she did not have arthritis warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the absence of arthritis was never in dispute and the new evidence would not affect the outcome.

The applicant's other submissions merely reiterated arguments made at the original hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the limitation period.

The applicant argued that she genuinely believed she could not file an application while her grievance was ongoing and that the date of the arbitration hearing should be considered the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's genuine belief did not constitute a good faith reason for delay under the Human Rights Code.

As the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and presented no new compelling circumstances, the request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed well beyond the 30-day time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because the original decision letter did not explain the reconsideration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it untimely and noting that the applicant could have informed himself of the Tribunal's rules.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any valid grounds for reconsideration under the Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, which was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Approximately three months later, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing he was not informed of the option or timeframe to seek reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was filed well beyond the 30-day time limit and the applicant's failure to inform himself of the Tribunal's rules did not constitute a valid reason for the delay or a basis for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and harassment by police officers.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation framed the issues narrowly and did not consider human rights principles or allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in employment by the respondent.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to add the corporate employer and its owner as respondents, and to include further factual allegations and expanded remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice in amending the Application at a preliminary stage.

Applying the test for adding respondents, the Tribunal found sufficient allegations that the proposed respondents failed to address the harassment complaints, which could support a finding of a Code violation.

The owner was appropriately added as a personal respondent because the Code's vicarious liability provision does not apply to harassment under section 7(2).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant had also grieved the termination of her employment under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process dealt with substantially similar facts and issues, and that grievance arbitrators have the ability to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in the context of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance was at an early stage and the Tribunal could award broader public interest remedies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process was the most appropriate forum to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the ability to implement and enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after being dismissed from her part-time employment.

The application was filed more than one year after her dismissal.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal found that the limitation period began on the date of dismissal, not the date her subsequent grievance was denied.

As the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to be identified by his initials in the proceeding to protect the identity of his minor son, who is a student with the respondent school board.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 3.11.1 of its Rules of Procedure, amending the style of cause for both the current and a previous interim decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his former employer and union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to a severe brain injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident and the subsequent appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Tribunal found the application was filed late and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.