Michelle Flaherty

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

The applicant's union sought to intervene and requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene but denied the request to defer, noting the grievance was dormant.

The Tribunal directed that an oral hearing be scheduled to determine the preliminary issue of whether the application was filed out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and discriminatory termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an employment standards officer had already determined the applicant was terminated for violating company policy, not due to discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the employment standards proceeding appropriately dealt with the termination issue, but did not address the poisoned work environment or failure to accommodate allegations.

The request for dismissal was granted in part, dismissing the termination claim while allowing the remaining claims to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination regarding the termination of his employment, naming a human resources manager as the sole respondent.

The corporate employer requested an order to remove the personal respondent and substitute itself as the proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the termination decision was made by the company and the relief sought could only be provided by the corporate employer.

The Tribunal also declined to act on the applicant's unclear requests for consolidation and reactivation.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the termination of his employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the reasons for the applicant's absence and conducted the type of analysis contemplated by the Code.

The application was dismissed as an attempt to re-litigate a case already determined.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment and reprisal by her union and its president.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because of ongoing grievance arbitrations, an internal union investigation, an employer investigation, and upcoming union elections.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the grievance proceedings did not address the substance of the human rights application.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, concluding that the proceedings involved different parties and remedies, and that the upcoming union elections did not justify a deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police and commission employees regarding a seatbelt ticket.

One respondent could not be served, two failed to respond, and two filed preliminary objections without a complete response.

The Tribunal ordered the Toronto Police Service to accept service or provide contact information for the unserved respondent, ordered the non-responding respondents to file a response within 10 days, and ordered the objecting respondents to file a complete response before their preliminary issues would be considered.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with 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 in employment, relating to events that occurred in 1997.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was outside the one-year limitation period and appeared to be based on the same facts as a previous application that was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the current application, including the issue of the applicant's delay, had already been dealt with in the previous proceeding.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the matter was already dealt with in previous complaints and settlement agreements, and that a full and final release was signed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under sections 45.1 and 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of goods, services, and facilities by the Bank of Montreal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banks are federally regulated.

The applicant argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the branch was located in Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, banking falls under federal jurisdiction and the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The respondents requested that the application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or because the issues should be addressed in a grievance.

The Tribunal found that the allegations, including discipline for innocent absenteeism, fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss or defer the application as no grievance had been filed.

The Union's request to intervene was granted because the application raised issues that could affect the collective bargaining relationship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of roofing services.

Unable to serve the respondent because he lacked the respondent's address, the applicant requested an order compelling the Hamilton Police Service to disclose the respondent's last known address.

The Police objected on privacy and jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the Police to disclose the address pursuant to Rule 1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and section 43(3) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day deadline and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The applicant requested to amend the application to include further particulars and reprisal, which the respondent consented to.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and directed the Union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of a hearing disability when he applied for a job.

The application was filed approximately one year and nine months after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal considered whether to extend the one-year limitation period under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay, which cited the illness and death of his grandmother, was vague and contradictory.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's amendments to its post-retirement benefits plan discriminated against him on the basis of age.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application as premature, arguing that the applicant had not yet retired and therefore had not suffered any loss.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the incident giving rise to the alleged discrimination occurred when the change in eligibility criteria came into effect, not upon the applicant's future retirement.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to present any new facts, evidence, or other grounds that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking further particulars, an extension of time to file a response, and an order striking certain sections of the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, respondents must file a complete response before making preliminary objections or requesting particulars.

The respondents were directed to file a complete response within 20 days.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application, arguing that the respondents were permitted to file irrelevant documentary evidence that was not disclosed in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the document in question was not admitted into evidence, marked as an exhibit, or relied upon by the Tribunal.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.