Michelle Flaherty

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 long-term employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He claimed the employer failed to accommodate his workplace preferences regarding days off, hours, and location, despite providing work that met his disability-related limitations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed most of the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to provide a perfect solution or meet preferences unrelated to Code needs.

Allegations against the union and claims of reprisal were also dismissed as speculative.

The Tribunal requested further submissions on whether the failure to pay a spread allowance for accommodated work was discriminatory.

The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination on various grounds, including race and place of origin, against the respondents following his deposition as a minister and other related events.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicant provided only speculation and accusations, and failed to establish a link between the respondents' actions and a Code-related ground.

The respondents' request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was denied.

The applicant, a teacher who had previously been disciplined for allegedly having a student sit on his lap, filed a human rights application alleging that a school board poster depicting a student sitting on a teacher's lap constituted indirect discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the poster did not constitute a workplace rule or requirement, nor did the applicant establish any link between the poster's alleged disproportionate impact and a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the police on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and association, claiming that police actions led to the loss of his home, livelihood, and marriage.

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

The Tribunal found that there was no basis beyond mere speculation to link the police's conduct to a Code-protected ground, noting reasonable, non-discriminatory explanations for the police's actions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

After the respondent made an assignment in bankruptcy, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to file any submissions within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.