Michelle Flaherty

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending an ongoing grievance arbitration that addressed the same facts and issues.

The Union confirmed that the grievance addressed the issues raised and that settlement discussions were ongoing.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement deals with the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing wrongful dismissal civil proceeding.

The Tribunal had previously refused to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the civil proceeding.

Noting that the civil matter was at an advanced stage and being set down for trial, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the completion of the civil proceeding.

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

She also filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was scheduled for arbitration.

Both parties agreed that the Tribunal should defer the application.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin in the context of Family Court custody proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent requested deferral pending the completion of the Family Court matter.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as it would be premature to consider the matter until the Family Court rendered a final decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued there was new evidence regarding a telephone call from his return to work specialist to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why this evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release in 2007 regarding a previous complaint.

The applicant alleged that the respondent refused to interview her for a position because of her prior human rights proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the current allegations of reprisal constituted a separate incident and did not arise out of the same fact situation covered by the previous release and settlement agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against him without his participation.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, claiming her employer suggested to the WSIB that her injury occurred at home rather than in the workplace.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing due to thwarted attempts to return to work.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requesting submissions from the respondent and the union regarding the timeliness of the application and whether it should be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance and WSIB proceeding.

The applicant, a condominium owner with muscular dystrophy, requested accommodation in the form of a wheelchair ramp at the front entrance of his unit.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed a ramp was appropriate but insisted the applicant bear the full cost and sign an agreement under s. 98 of the Condominium Act allocating all costs and liabilities to him.

The Tribunal found that the duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code requires the condominium corporation to bear the costs of accommodation up to the point of undue hardship, which was not established here.

The Tribunal also found the respondent breached its procedural duty to accommodate by refusing to engage in substantive discussions for a year and imposing unreasonable preconditions.

The respondent was ordered to install the ramp, pay $12,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and develop a human rights policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and sexual harassment by her real estate agent.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO).

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding the respondent failed to establish that RECO had appropriately dealt with the human rights substance of the complaint.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the respondent made a single, sexually explicit and demeaning comment directed at the applicant.

The Tribunal held that this single comment constituted gender discrimination in the provision of services under s. 1 of the Code, and awarded the applicant $300 in general damages.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisals by the respondent school board.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend a previous interim decision and his request for an interim remedy to be reinstated to paid leave, finding insufficient evidence to justify the extraordinary relief.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application as frivolous or vexatious.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain arguably relevant documents, including applicable policies and personal information regarding the applicant, while denying production of other employees' personal information.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that its substance had already been dealt with.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law but provided no submissions to support this or any other criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and presented no basis for reconsideration.

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

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the Application be dismissed because it is a federally-regulated organization.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application.

The Application was dismissed.

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

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had grieved the termination of his employment and the matter was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance process and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the use of sick leave for medical appointments and a request for reduced work hours.

The application was previously deferred pending a policy grievance.

Following the resolution of the grievance, the applicant requested to reactivate the application and sought an interim remedy to implement her requested accommodations.

The Tribunal reactivated the application but denied the interim remedy, finding that the limited medical evidence provided did not justify the extraordinary step of ordering interim relief prior to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the union and amend the application to change the area of alleged discrimination from contracts to employment.

As the requests were unopposed, the Tribunal granted both requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and record of offences.

She also filed a grievance alleging the respondents condoned harassment in the workplace.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the grievance dealt with the same subject matter.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it did not allege a Code violation.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding, finding it the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, without prejudice to the respondents' ability to seek dismissal if the application is reactivated.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a workplace injury, which had been deferred pending a WSIAT decision.

The WSIAT concluded the applicant had refused suitable work.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the WSIAT proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine the s. 45.1 dismissal issue.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because of ongoing union grievance proceedings involving overlapping subject matter.

Noting that the grievances were filed over a year ago and their status was unclear, the Tribunal directed the parties and the union to provide written submissions on the status of the grievance proceedings before determining the request to defer.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a civil claim based on the same facts had been filed.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it had already addressed and dismissed this issue in a previous interim decision because the civil claim did not seek damages for a Code violation.

The Tribunal then requested written submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil suit.