Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding amendments to the respondent's health and benefit plan.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, calculating the time from when notice of the amendments was given to employees.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the incident of alleged discrimination occurred when the changes to the plan came into effect, not when the notice was provided.

Therefore, the application was filed within the time limit.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because five grievances based on the same facts and issues were proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the arbitration would not address the human rights issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievances, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service failed to investigate her reports of crimes because they deemed her not credible due to her disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and commenced in bad faith.

The Tribunal noted that recent amendments to the Human Rights Code require an opportunity for oral submissions before making a final determination on applications within its jurisdiction.

Finding that the allegations fell within its jurisdiction, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that a hearing be scheduled on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a grievance seeking severance pay based on frustration of contract.

Alternatively, the respondent sought deferral pending the grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding insufficient basis at the preliminary stage to conclude it was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied deferral, noting that the grievance arbitration had been adjourned sine die and was unlikely to proceed concurrently.

The matter was directed to mediation.

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

The application was filed more than one year after the alleged incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the delay was incurred in good faith and how no substantial prejudice would result to the respondents, pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in a settlement agreement resolving earlier grievances.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the current application alleged a breach of the settlement agreement and future Code violations not covered by the release.

The Tribunal also directed the parties and the applicant's union to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending an upcoming grievance arbitration on the same subject matter.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because five grievances based on the same facts were proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant's union also sought leave to intervene.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the union to make written submissions on the preliminary question of deferral before deciding whether to defer the application or grant intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent condominium corporation failed to accommodate her environmental illness by not appropriately addressing mould in her unit.

The applicant brought a request to expedite the hearing, citing financial exhaustion from paying for alternate accommodation and an inability to afford urgent medical care.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that financial hardship, even when alleged to prevent medical treatment, does not generally constitute an urgent circumstance requiring an expedited process.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment by the personal respondents and failure by the corporate respondent to address it.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress and without legal representation.

The Tribunal found that economic pressure alone is insufficient to set aside a release and that the applicant was not pressured by the respondents to dismiss her counsel.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend her human rights application to add further information regarding how the alleged discrimination affected her.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of any apparent prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and family status after the respondents sought to remove his child from his care due to medical concerns.

The respondent Children's Aid Society requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because of an ongoing child protection proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application as premature, but ordered that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of the child protection proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same underlying facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Social Benefits Tribunal in the rendering of a decision.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal held that the content, reasons, and result of a statutory tribunal's decision do not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review or vary the order of another statutory tribunal, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of age, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin after his employment was terminated for reporting to work impaired.

The applicant claimed his impairment was due to cold medication, not alcohol, and that he was subjected to derogatory comments by his supervisor.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the alleged discriminatory comments were made.

The Tribunal also concluded that the termination was based on the applicant's impairment at work and not on any prohibited grounds, dismissing the application.

The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status by three Family Court judges who ordered him to make child support payments.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the content, reasons, and result contained in a court decision or order do not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review or vary the Family Court decisions, and the applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the context of a contract, as well as reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone conference hearing to receive submissions on the timeliness of the application and whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the respondent university, relating to a 1991 investigation and hospital detention.

The respondent requested dismissal on the grounds of delay, lack of jurisdiction, and that another proceeding had already dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a preliminary hearing be scheduled by telephone conference to address the limitation period, the application of section 45.1, and whether the allegations fall within an area of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested a deferral under Rule 14.1, arguing that an ongoing union grievance was based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant denied the grievance was ongoing, asserting a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the union to provide further information and submissions regarding the status of the grievance and any settlement agreement before determining the deferral request.

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it did not identify how the respondents breached the Human Rights Code or subjected the applicant to reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not allege that the respondents' behaviour was in response to claiming a right under the Code, participating in proceedings, or refusing to infringe a right.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend the Application to add further details and make editorial changes.

The respondent did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

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

After retaining counsel, the applicant sought to amend the application to add grounds of race, place of origin, and creed, and to include new allegations of discriminatory remarks by coworkers.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it lacked particulars and was prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the respondents' evidentiary concerns could be addressed at or before the hearing, and allowed the respondents 20 days to file an amended response.