Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her and forced her resignation.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for constructive dismissal based on the same facts, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil claim did not explicitly seek damages for a Code violation.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding due to the significant factual overlap between the two matters.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

A telephone conference hearing was scheduled to address this issue, but the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant later advised that he was unable to connect to the conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a second telephone conference hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal, warning that failure to attend could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Le requérant allègue avoir subi de la discrimination fondée sur le sexe et l'orientation sexuelle dans le cadre de son emploi.

Le Tribunal a examiné deux questions préliminaires.

Premièrement, le Tribunal a décidé de ne pas reporter la requête, car le grief syndical portant sur les mêmes faits avait été retiré.

Deuxièmement, le Tribunal a accueilli la demande de l'intimé visant à rayer une employée à titre d'intimée personnelle, puisque le Conseil scolaire a accepté la responsabilité de ses actes et qu'il n'y avait aucune raison convaincante de la maintenir comme partie à l'instance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and reprisals.

He brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his application to add several new factual allegations and a claim for $500,000 in damages.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the new allegations were irrelevant and brought in bad faith.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the damages claim and the allegations that were relevant to the application, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The request to add irrelevant allegations was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation by the police and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services during his detention.

The Ministry requested an early dismissal of the application, arguing it lacked sufficient particulars and did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal reconsidered an earlier interim decision and found that the application contained sufficient allegations against the Ministry relating to the Code to proceed.

The Ministry's request to dismiss was denied, but its request for an extension of time to file an amended response was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

A hearing was scheduled, and both parties received proper notice but failed to attend.

The Tribunal applied Rule 3.13 of its Rules of Procedure and dismissed the application as abandoned, noting that the onus lies on the applicant to establish the elements of her claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming the individual respondent made sexual advances and touched her inappropriately while providing massage services in her home.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The Tribunal granted a request to amend the corporate respondent's Response to correct the College's address.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the College to provide further written submissions regarding the status of the College complaint and whether the Tribunal should dismiss or defer the application.

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

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release and that proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under financial duress.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the preliminary issue of dismissal, failing which the matter would be decided on the written record.

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

The respondents sought to defer the application because of an ongoing grievance proceeding raising substantially the same issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, noting that the arbitrator has the responsibility to apply the Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment regarding severance packages paid upon a plant closure.

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

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the severance agreement contained no reference to the Human Rights Code or human rights claims, and the waiver was specific to recall rights and their abandonment.

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) entitlements.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the federal CPP scheme and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that these preliminary issues be addressed at a telephone conference hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination for the respondent's failure to provide modified work during her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the same issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance that had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the subject-matter of the application was substantially similar to the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (sexual solicitation) and termination of employment after rejecting her supervisor's advances.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary telephone conference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, as section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that hospital nurses gave away her pet cat without her consent while she was hospitalized in 2005.

The application was filed in 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's disability had stabilized in 2006 and she failed to make inquiries about her rights until 2009.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following a reconsideration decision that directed the applicant to advise if he wished to make further submissions on a preliminary issue, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant may have abandoned his application and directed him to respond within seven days to explain his failure, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer the matter pending a grievance.

The applicant submitted that the grievance was withdrawn following a settlement.

The respondents filed a request to remove an individual respondent as a party.

The Tribunal ordered the parties and the union to provide further written submissions on the potential deferral and the request to remove the individual respondent before making a determination on these preliminary issues.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because of an ongoing union grievance proceeding based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her pregnancy and parental leaves were factors in her termination.

The respondents sought to defer the Application due to an ongoing, concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding considerable overlap in the subject matter and noting that the remedies available under the ESA and the Code are similar in these circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The respondent sought early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with through union grievances.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against the union.

Finding insufficient information to determine the status and outcome of the grievances, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the application should proceed, be dismissed, or be deferred.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury at age 63 and received loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB for two years.

The benefits were terminated when he turned 65, pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

He filed an application alleging age discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because section 2.1 of the Act expressly exempts its age-based distinctions from the Human Rights Code.