Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and inadequate union representation.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered requests to add the applicant's former employer as a respondent, to remove an individual union representative as a personal respondent, and for further particulars.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal granted the request to add the employer, finding sufficient allegations to support a potential Code violation.

Applying the Sigrist and Carson test, the Tribunal removed the individual union representative, finding no compelling reason to name him personally.

The request for particulars was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated following a refusal to return to modified work duties.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was due to waiting for his union to decide whether to refer his grievance to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay and dismissed the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a pedagogical consultant, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, and race during his employment with the respondent language school.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was treated more harshly than his non-racialized counterpart, denied a key training opportunity, and ultimately dismissed for failing to provide daily updates during a medical absence—a requirement not imposed on other employees.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's race, colour, and ethnic origin were factors in his differential treatment and dismissal.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $7,560 for lost wages.

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 before the procedure became an insured service.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the reimbursement request was refused, which was more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination more than one year after the last alleged event.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and lacked a connection to Ontario.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond.

The Tribunal found that the failure to respond constituted an abandonment of the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the delay and a lack of connection to Ontario, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal found that the failure to respond constituted an abandonment of the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was not considered for a promotion.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with in a grievance proceeding that the union decided not to pursue.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or defer, finding no evidence that the grievance was ongoing or that the applicant agreed her concerns had been appropriately addressed.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment requested the production of the applicant's income tax returns, employment contracts, and receipts for furniture.

The applicant objected on the basis of confidentiality.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the application and the remedy claimed, and noting that the Tribunal's rules restrict the use of produced documents to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent university's failure to provide unredacted investigation reports.

The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the application.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed approximately one month outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status, as well as reprisals, regarding the respondent's alleged failure to grant access to information and its complaint procedure.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application failed to identify a social area of discrimination or explain how the concerns engaged a prohibited ground under the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded that there was no relationship between the Code and the allegations, and dismissed the Application.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release did not cover individual employees for human rights claims.

The Tribunal found that the general release language in the agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass human rights claims against individual employees, and that proceeding with the Application would be an abuse of process.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Canada Post Corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to provide submissions within 30 days.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal relating to complaints about workplace pornography.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending ongoing grievance proceedings and argued that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the grievances were being held in abeyance indefinitely.

On the issue of timeliness, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine if there was an ongoing series of incidents within the one-year limitation period and ordered the applicant to provide further written submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal.

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

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the applicant had raised allegations of ongoing discrimination that could constitute a series of incidents, which required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to take steps to serve one of the individual respondents who had retired and could not be located.

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

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant's representative on multiple occasions for a status update, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither the applicant nor their representative responded by the deadline.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit and did not raise a ground of discrimination against all respondents.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer for delay, finding no evidence of good faith, and against the WSIB for failing to raise any allegations within its jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed against the union, as it was not plain and obvious that it was barred.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference for medical reasons and asked the Tribunal to appoint a mediator to attempt an amicable settlement.

The respondents consented to the adjournment and agreed to mediation, provided it be held in person.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the registrar to schedule an in-person mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination related to his request for medical leave and subsequent termination.

The respondent sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Act officer who found the applicant was terminated for cause.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the applicant an opportunity to make oral submissions on the dismissal request before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and workplace bullying leading to her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant claimed the release was invalid and submitted in error due to miscommunication with her counsel.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to address the respondents' request for early dismissal, noting that the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before making a final determination.