Michelle Flaherty

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and an adjudicator regarding a decision to uphold a time extension for a freedom of information request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the content, reasons, and result of a statutory decision-maker's decision do not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and reprisal, arguing it did not establish a prima facie case.

The respondents also sought to remove the personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that an oral hearing was required under section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code and that the reprisal allegations made a preliminary determination difficult.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them in the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) discriminated against her on the basis of disability, sex, and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to challenge the outcome of an adjudicative process, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while a statutory decision-making process is a service under the Code, the content and result of the decision are not.

However, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was entirely outside its jurisdiction and directed the applicant to file a detailed statement clarifying her allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age with respect to services provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

She alleged that WSIB staff made discriminatory comments about her age and arthritis, and that the WSIB failed to ensure her employer provided appropriate modified work.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged comments to be vague and preferring the credible evidence of the WSIB staff.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the WSIB failed to ensure appropriate accommodations or that any alleged failure was connected to a Code-protected ground.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of goods, services, or facilities.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including the application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions seeking submissions from the parties, but the applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the application had been abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Revenue Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent is a federal government department and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal confirmed that the Code only applies to respondents under provincial jurisdiction and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy and parental leave) following the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The request to reactivate was filed outside the 60-day timeframe.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to reactivate, noting the short delay and lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, directing the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after resigning from his employment and signing a full and final release.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress because the employer threatened to terminate him for working another job while collecting sick leave benefits.

The Tribunal found no duress, as the employer's threat of termination for fraudulent behaviour was not illegitimate pressure.

The Tribunal also found the allegations against the union related to inadequate representation, not discrimination.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The respondent requested early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the LTB matter was ongoing and had not reached a conclusion.

However, given the significant overlap in subject matter and the advanced stage of the LTB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the LTB matter.

The respondent requested the early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the Landlord and Tenant Board matter was ongoing and had not reached a conclusion.

However, given the significant overlap in the issues and the advanced stage of the other proceeding, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the Landlord and Tenant Board matter.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference hearing to address the issue.

After failing to attend the first hearing, the applicant was warned that failure to attend the rescheduled hearing could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to attend the second hearing or contact the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT had appropriately applied human rights principles in determining that the work offered to the applicant was suitable and in rejecting his claims of harassment and discrimination.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

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

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1, arguing another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

A hearing was scheduled to consider the request, but the applicant failed to attend.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

A hearing by teleconference was scheduled to hear the applicant's oral submissions on the request.

Neither party attended the scheduled teleconference.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his early Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits were deducted from his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) income support.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the deduction of CPP benefits from ODSP entitlements was based on the applicant's income, not his age.

As the alleged disadvantage was not based on a Code-protected ground, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the application was dismissed.