Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging mistreatment by the Ottawa Police Service.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and failed to link the treatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant did not provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, finding no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was not proceeding concurrently due to procedural irregularities and the applicant's absence from work.

Concluding that deferral was not the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to defer the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex against a bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because banks are federally-regulated businesses under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, arguing that a Ministry of Labour proceeding under the Employment Standards Act had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the Ministry of Labour had not yet rendered a decision.

However, the Tribunal noted that deferral might be appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and directed the parties to file written submissions on the status of the Ministry of Labour complaint and the appropriateness of a deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including whether the WSIB provided a 'service' under section 1 of the Code and whether a WSIB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone conference call to hear submissions on these preliminary issues.

The respondent sought early dismissal of a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code applied to issues resolved in the grievance, but noted the applicant alleged harassment continued after the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions identifying which allegations post-dated the settlement before making a final determination.

The applicant, a child with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested an order to use and disclose the applicant's Ontario Student Record, which the Tribunal deferred as premature.

The applicant requested a publication ban and anonymization of his and his family's names to protect his privacy and prevent stigma.

The Tribunal granted the request for anonymization in its decisions but denied the publication ban, citing the fundamental importance of an open and transparent Tribunal process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code based on the respondents' behaviour in another Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal refer the Application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and defer its own proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no particular basis to refer the matter to the Commission as the applicant failed to explain why this specific Application warranted such a referral.

The respondent employer requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging employment discrimination, arguing that a grievance proceeding and a WSIB appeal had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance meeting did not conclude the grievance and the respondent provided no information on how the WSIB process was relevant to the matter.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 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, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant briefly stated she lacked the confidence to deal with the allegations earlier.

The Tribunal found it could not determine if the delay was incurred in good faith based on the limited information provided and granted the applicant ten days to file additional submissions explaining the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to provide reasonable accommodation.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance and WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the applicant's union to provide written submissions on the status of the concurrent proceedings and the appropriateness of a deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the workplace.

The respondent and the applicant's union indicated that a grievance based on the same facts had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against several individual respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant withdrew the application against four individuals and provided details regarding three others.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the withdrawn individuals and one other whose allegations related to a non-party, allowing the application to proceed against the remaining respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application because the applicant's factual allegations regarding the withdrawal of an accommodated position lacked sufficient detail.

The adjudicator directed the applicant to provide specific facts about the necessary accommodation measures and her inability to function in the workplace within ten days, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the application.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, arguing that a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision did not address the core issues of the application, namely whether the applicant abandoned his employment or whether the respondent failed to accommodate him.

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

A union grievance was also filed on behalf of the applicant regarding the same issues.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application or, in the alternative, a deferral.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, denied the request to dismiss because the grievance had not reached a conclusion, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status after the respondents attempted to evict him following the breakdown of his relationship with the landlord's sister.

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the LTB proceedings involved the same facts, they dealt with the appropriateness of the tenancy and did not address the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was inappropriately disciplined and suspended.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for naming improper respondents or deferred due to an ongoing grievance process.

The applicant's union requested intervener status and also sought deferral.

The Tribunal granted the union intervener status and denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, marital status, receipt of public assistance, and association.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had received proper notice and failed to take the necessary steps to pursue the proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues.

Neither party provided submissions on the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.