Michelle Flaherty

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application against two corporate respondents and one personal respondent.

The corporate respondents filed a Response, but the personal respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the personal respondent that failure to file a Response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to him and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.

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

After a series of adjournments and failures to respond to Tribunal correspondence regarding whether the matter had settled or if the applicant intended to proceed, the Tribunal warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After indicating an intention to withdraw the application by telephone, the applicant failed to respond to multiple written requests from the Tribunal to formally confirm the withdrawal.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an earlier decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the discrimination was ongoing because she was still unable to receive a full pension or purchase pension credits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue her case and introduce new arguments that contradicted her earlier submissions.

Finding no new facts or compelling circumstances to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5, the Tribunal dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory pension plan provisions.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ongoing written communications and advocacy between his counsel and the respondent prior to filing.

The Tribunal held that, consistent with established jurisprudence, pursuing rights in another forum or engaging in ongoing negotiations does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ruled that the applicant's counsel could continue to act for him, as the correspondence would likely not be relevant to outstanding issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached an oral settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications relating to the breach of settlement, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code because there was no written and signed agreement.

Regarding a third application filed on behalf of a minor, the Tribunal directed the parties to file further materials to determine whether the applicant retained authority to act as a next friend given the minor was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and other grounds, as well as reprisal, against the corporate and personal respondents.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the two applications.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that there were common issues of fact and law, a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, and no prejudice to the parties.

The Tribunal ordered the two applications consolidated and heard together.

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

After the Tribunal scheduled a mediation, the respondents requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters to the applicant requesting alternative dates and her intentions regarding the application, but the applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order permitting her doctor to testify by telephone conference call and directing the respondent to summons a former employee.

The Tribunal granted the request for the doctor to testify by telephone, noting the limited scope of his expected evidence and the lack of apparent prejudice to the respondent's ability to cross-examine, provided the applicant files a statement of expected evidence.

The request to direct the respondent to summons a former employee was denied, as there was no basis for such an order and the applicant could request a summons herself.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent 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 respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

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 her absence.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that her application could be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin after the respondent school board excluded him from school for 17 days following a behavioural incident.

The respondent argued the exclusion was based on safety concerns, including reports of a psychotic break and student complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no basis beyond speculation to suggest the respondent's actions were discriminatory.