Michelle Flaherty

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.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the death of a family member overseas and delayed funeral services.

One respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the extraordinary circumstances warranted rescheduling the hearing.

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

Following a mediation, the parties requested additional time to reach a settlement but did not file a settlement form.

The Tribunal sent a Registrar's letter requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing pending the completion of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's updated policy on creed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed that the parties and proposed intervenors would make submissions at the outset of the summary hearing regarding the order in which the issues would be addressed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a reconsideration request before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT reconsideration process had not yet concluded and there was no basis to reactivate the application at this time.

The request to reactivate was denied.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond by a specific date but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal requested a Reply to the Response and submissions on the issue of delay, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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 for the production of further documents and the disclosure of contact information for proposed witnesses.

The respondent objected, arguing the requests were premature as a Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued.

The Tribunal agreed that the document production request was premature and denied it.

The Tribunal also denied the request for witness contact information at this stage, but directed the respondent to advise whether it possessed such information.

A hearing and case management meeting were ordered to be scheduled.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant withdrew his claim regarding unpaid wages for a religious holiday but maintained his harassment allegations.

The Tribunal held that while some of the applicant's allegations appeared to relate to general management practices rather than Code-protected grounds, it could not conclude at this preliminary stage that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondents to file a response.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming she was unable to accrue or purchase full-time pension credit service while on a reduced workload for medical reasons.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, noting that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude or taking time to understand complex issues did not justify the late filing.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who resides in a two-bedroom social housing unit, alleged discrimination based on disability after the respondent sought to move him to a one-bedroom unit because he was overhoused.

The applicant requested an interim remedy to remain in the two-bedroom unit pending the final determination of his application, arguing he needed the extra space for fitness equipment related to his disabilities.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the balance of harm and convenience did not favour granting the interim remedy, given the respondent's limited housing units and the fact that the requested interim relief was identical to the final remedy sought.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through grievance settlements between the employer and the union.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a party to the minutes of settlement and did not implicitly accept their terms, as the removal of disciplinary letters from his file was a unilateral measure by the employer.

The request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a party and amend the Application to include additional particulars, a witness, and supporting documents ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The respondent consented to the additional particulars but argued the other requests were premature.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the amendment for further particulars, but found the request to add a witness premature and deferred any findings on the admissibility of the supporting documents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights Application to revise and add to her description of the alleged incidents of discrimination.

The respondents 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 applicants, university professors, sought to amend their human rights applications to add further allegations of reprisal and to request interim remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to a 2008 investigation report and the remedies sought, finding they were closely connected to the original applications and would not cause significant prejudice or delay.

However, the Tribunal denied broader amendments concerning more recent interactions, as they would significantly increase the complexity and delay the proceedings.

The requests for interim remedies were also denied, as the applicants failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that such extraordinary relief was necessary or appropriate before a hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was initially dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions regarding a stay of proceedings issued under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act against the corporate respondent.

The applicant argued she did not receive notice of a step in the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence that the applicant failed to receive notice, as correspondence was sent to her provided address and not returned, and she could not identify any specific notice she missed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, workplace harassment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to present new facts, evidence, or demonstrate a conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied his request to void minutes of settlement.

The applicant argued that he signed the settlement under duress, alleging that opposing counsel threatened his ODSP benefits would be compromised if he challenged the wording.

The Tribunal found that the pressure alleged did not amount to illegitimate pressure or coercion of the will under the legal test for duress.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant presented no new facts or evidence that would warrant reconsidering the decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, family status, and marital status after she was not hired for a pharmacy technician position.

The Tribunal found that the respondent asked improper questions about the applicant's family status, marital status, and place of origin during the job interview, in breach of section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's answers to these questions were a factor in the respondent's decision not to hire her.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $496.13 for lost wages, and to complete human rights training.