Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on various grounds but failed to identify a social area.

Following an Interim Decision requesting clarification, the applicant submitted that he was not alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code and acknowledged the Application was likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application as it lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints not related to a ground and social area under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in the calculation of his non-economic loss benefit by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the application was barred by section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Noting the applicant's failure to respond to the request, the Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the applicant ten days to provide written or oral submissions before determining the dismissal issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment, culminating in his termination.

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release upon termination, or alternatively, a deferral pending a police investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding the termination document contained no release language.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request, noting the police investigation addressed a different specific issue and appeared to be concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, claiming he was terminated after refusing to return to modified work duties due to injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal on several grounds, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the timeliness issue within ten days, noting that the other preliminary issues would be addressed subsequently.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal in her employment, claiming she was bullied, harassed, and unfairly dismissed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application did not identify a Code-related ground for the alleged mistreatment.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it did not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

The applicants, two employees of Indian descent whose first language is Punjabi, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed after they were selected for layoff during a business downturn.

They also alleged subtle discrimination throughout their employment, including comments by the general manager about their use of Punjabi during lunch breaks.

The Tribunal found that the comments about the use of Punjabi constituted discrimination under the Code.

Regarding the layoffs, the Tribunal found that the respondents had a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis for laying off Mr. Gill due to performance issues.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondents failed to establish a non-discriminatory basis for laying off Ms. Dhamrait, as her performance issues were minor and the other factors cited were pretextual.

The Tribunal awarded damages for injury to dignity to both applicants, and lost wages and reinstatement to Ms. Dhamrait.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and procedure, and that she was disadvantaged as a self-represented litigant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established case law or procedure, and concluding that the applicant had a fair opportunity to be heard on the preliminary issue of timeliness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to inquire into the limitation period and her decision to wait for the conclusion of a grievance arbitration did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application alleging employment discrimination 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 issued an interim decision providing the applicant's union, the Ontario Nurses Association, an opportunity to make submissions on the deferral issue within ten days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of race, disability, family status, and marital status.

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

The applicant's union also requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting the significant overlap between the two proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding a failure to facilitate his return to work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of related grievance proceedings.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, noting the application could affect the collective agreement.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and provided the union with ten days to make submissions on the respondent's deferral request.

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

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the Teamsters Union, Local 230 and Dan Millar.

As there were no objections from the remaining respondents, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause to remove the union and Dan Millar as respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him, but initially failed to identify a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In response to an earlier interim decision, the applicant filed submissions alleging discrimination on the basis of gender and family status.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the Code and were within its jurisdiction to decide.

The respondent was ordered to file a complete Response, and the matter was referred to mediation.

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

The respondents sought to defer the application due to an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant's union requested leave to intervene, which the respondents supported.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the union to provide written submissions on the deferral issue within ten days.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in respect of employment and contracts against his former employer, Parkdale United Church, and its oversight bodies.

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding delay, whether a prima facie case was established, and whether the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Parkdale due to a delay of over two years that was not incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal found the applications against the oversight bodies were timely, established a prima facie case of discrimination, and were not barred by another proceeding under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application twelve days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to health concerns related to diabetes, a trip to Africa, and a court date.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide information showing how his health concerns impacted his ability to file within the limitation period, and dismissed the application for lack of a good faith reason for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Niagara Police and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The Ministry requested early dismissal, arguing the allegations related only to the police.

After previously denying the request, the Tribunal decided to reconsider its earlier interim decision regarding the refusal to dismiss the application against the Ministry.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, constituting discrimination on the basis of sex under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the applicant was dismissed due to poor performance during training and denied knowing she was pregnant.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible, concluded that management was unaware of the pregnancy, and determined the dismissal was based on performance concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisals by her employer, specifically regarding comments made to the WSIB and a refusal to allow her to return to work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to address whether the application was untimely or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because of a WSIAT decision and a union grievance.

The Tribunal found that neither the WSIAT decision nor the withdrawn grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing due to a factual dispute regarding a recent meeting, and ordered the respondent to file a full response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal after her part-time position was converted to full-time, which interfered with her childcare obligations.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that a prior grievance settlement had appropriately resolved the matter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement.