Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination more than 13 months after the incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal concluded it could not find the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) and dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested permission to call her treating physician as an additional witness after concluding her evidence.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that calling the witness would unduly delay the proceeding and was unnecessary.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's oral evidence that she had a disability at the material times, making the physician's testimony not probative at this stage, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to call the witness in reply.

The respondent school board filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant to consent to the disclosure and use of his Ontario Student Record (OSR) so that it could file its Response to the human rights application.

The applicant objected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it premature to order disclosure of the OSR before pleadings were closed and regular disclosure obligations were triggered.

The respondent was directed to file its Response and could seek leave to amend it later if necessary.

The applicants, two couples who were denied funding for in vitro fertilization treatments, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex.

They brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate all four applications and have them heard together.

The respondent consented to consolidating the applications of each couple but objected to consolidating all four matters, arguing that the reasons for infertility differed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding common issues of fact and law, a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, and no evidence of prejudice to any person.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal.

Following the termination of her employment, she filed a grievance.

The respondent requested the removal of personal respondents, and the applicant requested deferral of the application pending the grievance outcome.

Both requests were made on consent and granted by the Tribunal.

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

He subsequently wrote to the Tribunal indicating his wish to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal directed him to file a Form 9, failing which the application would be considered abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the form or communicate further.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant verbally advised the Tribunal she wished to withdraw the application but failed to file a Form 9 or communicate further despite being warned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add an employment agency as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and disability.

The Tribunal noted that the proposed added party had filed a Response seeking clarification because it had not received a copy of the Application.

The Tribunal ordered that the proposed added party be provided with a copy of the Application and given ten days to make submissions on whether it should be added as a respondent.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved through a prior grievance settlement.

The applicant contended the settlement was signed under duress.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed that a hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed due to the settlement or as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation in employment, specifically relating to an allegedly improper personal search.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on the connection between the allegations and the prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the materials did not establish that the applicant was treated differently because of his sex or that the allegations fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sexual solicitation and advances that occurred in 2000.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed nine years after the alleged incidents.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, finding no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant, through his next friend, brought a human rights application alleging discrimination at the Robert Land Academy.

The applicant sought to add the Academy as a respondent, which was granted on consent.

The individual respondents, the Headmaster and his wife, sought to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted their removal, noting that their actions fell within the normal course of employment and the Academy accepted vicarious liability.

Finally, the Tribunal addressed whether the next friend could continue representing the applicant, who had reached the age of majority, and ordered the applicant to file a consent form if he wished the representation to continue.

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

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on her behalf, one of which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding that the grievance and the application were based on the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its general practice.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add an employment agency as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of family status and disability.

The respondent did not object to adding the agency and claimed the applicant was an employee of the agency.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the agency as a respondent and ordered the respondents to disclose the name of the agency employee who liaised between the applicant and the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation in the provision of services by the police and the Ministry.

The Ministry requested an early dismissal, arguing the allegations did not establish differential treatment or a violation of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the Application and Reply, read together, contained allegations relating to the Code, particularly regarding sexual orientation, and denied the request for early dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status, claiming her relationship with her common law spouse was a factor in her layoff.

The respondent maintained the layoff was due to a business downturn and a belief that the applicant had leaked confidential information to a competitor associated with her spouse.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was based on its belief that the applicant had disclosed confidential information, not on the identity of her spouse or her marital status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was mailed.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5, and granted him 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and his union.

The union respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that while there was overlap, the application raised allegations against the union itself (including inadequate representation and complicity with the employer) that could not be remedied through the grievance process.

The respondents were directed to file their responses.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal following his termination, and to add the Executive Director as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the individual respondent, finding no allegations in the application that could support a finding against him and no compelling reason to add him alongside the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent sought early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and sexual orientation, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that certain incidents were covered by the grievance settlement and dismissed those portions of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations, which were not addressed in the grievance process, to proceed.