Michelle Flaherty

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as moot.

He argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his written submissions, which he had attempted to email but were not received due to a delivery failure.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration to consider the submissions as a matter of procedural fairness.

However, after reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found no basis to vary its original conclusion that the application was moot, as the applicant's allegations of prejudice due to delay were too remote and speculative.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the survivor benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the alleged discrimination did not constitute a series of incidents, but rather a single incident with continuing effects that occurred either upon the applicant's retirement or his subsequent remarriage.

As the application was filed more than a year after these events and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.

Following an interim decision dismissing most allegations, the Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegation—that the employer discriminated by not paying a spread allowance for split shifts worked as a rear door loader—had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the allegation against the employer to proceed, noting that rear door loaders are primarily disabled workers and one of the few categories not receiving the allowance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to negotiate the allowance was based on a discriminatory factor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed the application following a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not identify any new facts, evidence, or other grounds set out in Rule 26.5 to justify a reconsideration, but merely reiterated arguments previously made.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disabilities sometimes prevented him from doing his own banking, forcing him to rely on others.

The Tribunal held that the WSIB's practice of paying benefits by cheque constituted constructive discrimination, as it had an adverse impact on the applicant due to his disability.

The WSIB was ordered to pay $1,800 for financial losses resulting from theft by a person the applicant relied upon, and $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the survivorship benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondent Board sought early dismissal of this and 82 other similar applications for delay.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the application be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal's determination of a lead case on the issue of delay.

The respondents did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance pending the determination of the lead case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to amend her human rights application and add new parties.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request because it concerned a preliminary procedural direction rather than a final decision, was filed almost a year after the 30-day deadline without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and failed to provide a valid basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the merits hearing, arguing that he needed time to summons a witness to authenticate newly received information regarding the respondent's direct deposit practices.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the information sought to be authenticated was not material to the sole outstanding issue of whether the failure to provide direct deposit services discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his disability.

The applicant, who has a developmental disability, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of an ongoing discriminatory wage differential as out of time.

The Tribunal previously found that the ongoing practice of paying her less than non-disabled employees was not a continuing contravention under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that the ongoing wage differential constituted a series of incidents, making the allegations timely.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration and directed further proceedings to determine the merits and potential remedy.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application following a summary hearing.

He argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal found that the 'new evidence' consisted mostly of reiterated arguments and could have been presented earlier.

The Tribunal also found no material errors of fact or conflict with jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of the third day of the hearing for medical reasons, supported by a medical note.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's illness constituted exceptional circumstances under its Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations.

The adjournment was granted, and the applicant was directed to provide further medical information regarding his ability to proceed within eight weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied discretionary benefits for dentures because he was not considered 'employable' under the Ontario Works Act.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as moot, noting that the applicant ultimately received funding for the dentures through another program and the municipality had since amended its policy to remove the employability requirement for dental benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear a moot case.

The applicant, a former waitress, alleged that the respondent, her general manager, sexually harassed her through explicit comments, a text message, and a highly vulgar voicemail.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and solicitation by a person in a position of power, violating the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the severe psychological impact, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant, represented by his mother as next friend, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent argued the mother lacked authority to proceed because the applicant was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal found the mother had authority to proceed but dismissed the application following a summary hearing, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged incidents to a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of discrimination, harassment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal were based on speculation and lacked any reasonable prospect of establishing a link to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to provide documentation specifying the nature of the PSA investigation and the reasons for its dismissal, and therefore did not meet their onus to show that the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent, which subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions on whether the application could proceed despite the bankruptcy stay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration, claiming she had not received the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on why the application could proceed given the bankruptcy.

When the applicant again failed to provide submissions, the Tribunal found the Request for Reconsideration to be abandoned.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

In a preliminary motion, the applicant sought production of statistics concerning individuals who received direct deposits prior to October 2012.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the statistical information was not arguably relevant to the remaining issue of whether the applicant's mobility limitations prevented him from effectively accessing his benefits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after he was unsuccessful in a third job competition for a foreperson position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations as untimely, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.