Michelle Flaherty

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications following a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely disagreed with the decision and reiterated previous arguments, failing to present any valid basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a graduate student, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed (ethical veganism) after her university professors criticized her academic work and the university ultimately prohibited her from pursuing a research topic relating to animal rights.

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

Assuming without deciding that ethical veganism is a creed, the Tribunal found that academic criticism of a student's scholarship does not constitute discrimination simply because it relates to the student's personally-held beliefs.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of minutes of settlement entered into under the old Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to make submissions on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, as the Commission had not approved the settlement.

The applicant provided correspondence from the Commission stating it had inadvertently failed to approve the settlement before closing the file, but had now corrected the error and approved it.

The Tribunal found that the conditions of section 54 of the Code were met and it had jurisdiction over the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction that denied her request to cancel a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the direction was a preliminary or procedural decision, not a final decision subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

Furthermore, the applicant merely reiterated her previous arguments and provided no basis for reconsideration.