Michelle Flaherty

The applicant alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and reprisal in the form of termination.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR).

The Tribunal found that the EIBR appropriately dealt with the issue of whether the termination was discriminatory, concluding it was due to misconduct.

However, the EIBR did not address the underlying sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application but allowed the harassment claims to proceed.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed grievances under a collective agreement raising identical issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were part of the ongoing grievance process.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the human rights application on its own initiative, noting that the time for the applicant to file a Reply had not actually elapsed.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's request to expedite the proceedings due to an impending eviction.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, but only with respect to the preliminary issue of whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and reprisals.

The applicant subsequently filed a request to withdraw the application against the respondent Emmanuel Augustin.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

As the applicant did not file a reply, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she wishes to make oral submissions on the early dismissal request, failing which the Tribunal will decide the issue based on written materials.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age, as well as reprisal.

The applicant requested that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance proceeding, and the respondent supported the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the Application pending the determination of the grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability by the respondent police service, claiming he was arrested, tortured, and involuntarily hospitalized.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations, while ambiguous, relate to grounds listed in the Human Rights Code and appear to be within its jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed and ordered to be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour two years after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to ignorance of his rights and despondency over his union's handling of his complaint.

The Tribunal found the applicant had reason to make enquiries about his rights and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application 12 days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to health concerns, a trip to Africa, and a court date.

The Tribunal found that the court date and trip did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay.

However, the Tribunal could not determine whether the health concerns justified the delay based on the brief mention in the submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file additional submissions regarding his health concerns before making a final determination on jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds but failed to identify a social area or explain how the respondent's actions related to the prohibited grounds.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the application was incomplete, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions detailing the social area, the nature of the alleged discrimination, and its connection to the Code grounds, noting that 'frivolous and vexatious' is no longer a basis for early dismissal under the amended Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent law firm entered into a settlement agreement involving him without consultation.

The respondent, acting as court-appointed counsel for long-term disability beneficiaries in a CCAA proceeding, requested the application be dismissed or deferred pending the court's determination of the settlement.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application but agreed with the parties that deferral was appropriate pending the court's decision on the proposed settlement agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race in the area of housing against a hydro company, a municipal councillor, a land developer, and a lawyer.

The allegations related to a hydro easement, a noise attenuation fence, and events that occurred between 10 and 20 years prior.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the developer and lawyer due to the applicant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the hydro company and councillor, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence connecting the alleged mistreatment to the applicant's race.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently filed a Request to Withdraw the Application against all parties.

The respondents argued the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's repeated attempts to litigate the same matter in different venues.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Withdraw, finding no basis to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed regarding the dietary accommodations provided while he was incarcerated.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor his counsel attended, nor did they request an adjournment.

The respondent's counsel attended and informed the Tribunal that the applicant had been arrested earlier that week.

Because the applicant failed to attend or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, regarding his housing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the LTB had considered and dismissed substantially similar allegations, including failure to accommodate regarding accessible parking and harassment.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's parallel Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim regarding her termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceedings focused on only one element of the discrimination allegations and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the matter, noting that an appeal of the ESA decision was possible and would cause significant delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him in the context of employment and contracts, but failed to identify a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting it does not have general power to decide fairness, only alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the connection between his allegations and the prohibited grounds in the Code before proceeding further.

The applicant, a three-year-old with asthma, filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability due to exposure to dryer fumes and chemicals.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application citing ongoing and possibly serious health concerns.

The respondent did not take a position on the request but indicated a willingness to mediate.

The Tribunal found that the health concerns constituted urgent circumstances and granted the request to expedite, directing the matter to early mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her need to be absent from work to care for her husband.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal invited submissions on whether to defer the application pending potential Ministry of Labour proceedings.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred indefinitely due to the applicant's failure to file submissions or a Reply.

The Tribunal found no evidence of an ongoing proceeding that would warrant deferral and held that the applicant's failure to file submissions was not a basis to dismiss the application.

The respondent's requests were denied and the application was ordered to proceed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer consideration of the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

As both the applicant and the respondents agreed to the deferral, and the union did not file submissions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding.