Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete and requested additional information and submissions on jurisdiction, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested to reactivate two deferred human rights applications following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents objected, arguing the substance of the applications had been addressed in the other proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding the other proceeding had concluded, but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the applications should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the Tribunal issued a letter warning that failure to respond might result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal rescheduled a mediation at the respondent's request and directed the applicant to provide her availability for a new date.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including a warning that her application would be deemed abandoned if she did not reply.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her union for failing to file a grievance regarding her termination and failing to advance her WSIB claim in a timely manner.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to allege or provide any basis to suggest that her disability was a factor in the union's behaviour.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite a previous Tribunal direction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the HRTO 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 in employment based on disability.

In their response, the respondents requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a letter signed by the applicant upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the letter did not contain clear release language and it was unclear if it represented a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal requested written submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested the removal of several personal respondents from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal based on family status.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents, which occurred in the context of their employment.

The Tribunal removed all personal respondents except for one whose conduct was deemed potentially central to the issues in the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding the administration of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to unfairness and errors in the provision of government benefits, rather than discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

As the Tribunal does not have the power to review benefit decisions for correctness absent a Code violation, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondent legal clinic discriminated against her on the basis of disability when it declined to represent her in an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the applicant's disability was a factor in the clinic's decision not to represent her, which was based on its assessment of the merits of her appeal and her failure to provide requested information.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, as well as reprisal, regarding the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's handling of her late husband's claims.

The applicant argued that the respondent unfairly ceased communicating with her for several months after she challenged a decision.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no basis to link the respondent's failure to communicate with any Code ground or to establish a reprisal.

The applicant filed a Request for Reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant argued that the ongoing deferral breached section 7 of the Charter and that the union had unreasonably delayed advancing the grievance.

The Tribunal rejected the Charter argument, noting that the grievance had been referred to arbitration and the applicant was prepared to participate.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to reactivate the application or supervise the grievance process, and denied the request, maintaining the deferral.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the survivorship benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of sex and marital status.

The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the application be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal's determination of the delay issue in a lead case raising the same issues.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the survivorship benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of sex and marital status.

The applicant requested that the application be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal's determination of a delay issue in a lead case raising the same issues.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, and sex, and sought an interim remedy to delay the removal of her belongings following an eviction order.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the application appeared to have merit regarding the eviction, which was based on rent arrears and non-compliance with court orders.

Furthermore, the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy, as the eviction had already occurred and the respondent confirmed the belongings would remain safely in storage.

The applicant, a resident in a co-operative housing unit, sought an interim remedy to stay the respondent's consideration of her request for reconsideration of an eviction decision, pending the determination of her human rights application.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim stay of the reconsideration meeting, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the remedy, as no harm flowed simply from the respondent's consideration of the request.

The Tribunal sought further submissions on the remainder of the interim remedy request.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his mother, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, and age after the respondent financial institution closed a joint line of credit following the death of her husband and declined her application for a new $10,000 line of credit.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing a link between the respondent's conduct and a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.