Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin by a teacher and the school board.

The school board requested that the application be dismissed against it, arguing it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal denied this request, finding that vicarious liability could not be determined without a full evidentiary record.

The teacher requested that the application be deferred or dismissed due to a resolved grievance and a concluded Ontario College of Teachers complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because the other proceedings were no longer ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the teacher's request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that regardless of whether the last incident occurred on March 17, 2008, or April 15, 2008, the application filed on March 6, 2009, was within the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Code.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for particulars but granted an extension of time to file a complete response.

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

The applicant argued there were new facts, a conflict with established case law, and other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated arguments made at the original hearing and presented no basis to reconsider the decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisals in her employment with Revenue Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federal government department.

The applicant filed written submissions but did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent falls under federal jurisdiction and is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, not the provincial Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisals by her professional association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated entity.

The applicant's written submissions did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally regulated enterprise and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

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

The Tribunal issued two Notices of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination or allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to either Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents intimidated employees into attending work when sick.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the determination of an ongoing policy grievance regarding the attendance assistance program.

The Union requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues and facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and the termination of her benefits.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant and her union were pursuing concurrent grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that proceeding with the application would create concurrent proceedings and risk inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could request the application proceed once the grievances were resolved.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate in employment.

The applicant had also filed a grievance under a collective agreement raising substantially similar factual and legal issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding public interest remedies and the respondent's alleged bad faith, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and age, as well as reprisal in her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts.

After the applicant informed the Tribunal that the grievances had been withdrawn and would not proceed to arbitration, the Tribunal found there was no longer any reason to defer consideration of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex regarding her termination from employment.

She also filed a concurrent application with the OLRB alleging her union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to grieve the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate because the two proceedings involved different parties, raised different issues, and offered different potential remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and sexual orientation after the respondent refused to reimburse her for sex reassignment surgery performed in 2007.

The Tribunal previously determined the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and provided the applicant an opportunity to explain the delay.

The applicant failed to file any submissions regarding the reasons for the delay or whether it was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be federally regulated.

The applicant submitted that the respondent is a placement agency providing staffing services to the federal government, and that its activities fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it was not clear and obvious at this preliminary stage that the respondent is federally regulated, and allowed the application to proceed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment during massage therapy be deferred or dismissed because the applicant had filed a complaint with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the College matter had concluded, so deferral was not appropriate.

Regarding the request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal directed that the applicant be given an opportunity to make oral submissions before a final determination is made.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment, claiming his non-economic loss benefit was calculated based on his age at the time of his workplace accident.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board requested the application be dismissed, arguing that section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 permits age-based distinctions despite the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that section 2.1 of the Act exempts age-based distinctions from review under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application on a preliminary issue, but reconsidered its decision on its own motion after realizing the time for the applicant to file a Reply had not elapsed.

The applicant subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, arguing the reconsideration process was unfair.

The Tribunal denied the recusal request, noting its statutory power to reconsider decisions under s. 45.7(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also scheduled a telephone hearing to address the preliminary issue, as s. 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated because he requested a medical leave, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal found that the ESA officer had considered the termination and the human rights issues, concluding that the applicant was dismissed for cause and that the request for medical leave was not an improper factor.

Finding that the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by his employer for failing to facilitate his return to work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of ongoing grievance proceedings based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider an earlier interim decision granting the union intervener status, and granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding significant overlap between the application and the grievances.

The respondent requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that the applicant had filed grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The respondent also requested reconsideration of an earlier interim decision granting the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the earlier decision, finding no basis to interfere.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application, noting its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and sexual orientation, as well as reprisal, in the context of her employment.

The respondents argued the application was untimely.

After the applicant twice failed to provide written submissions on the issues of deferral and timeliness as directed by the Tribunal, and failed to communicate with the Tribunal for several months, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.