Michelle Flaherty

The applicant's employment was terminated following a disability leave, which the Tribunal previously found to be discriminatory based on age and disability.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal assessed damages.

The applicant sought over $196,000 in lost wages and other compensation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to fully mitigate her damages by refusing to consider an alternate position offered by the respondent, limiting her lost wages claim to five weeks, discounted to $3,847.50.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $217.96 for lost benefits.

The respondent was also ordered to have its district managers complete human rights training.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, citing an injury.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed the applicant to provide medical evidence establishing her inability to attend, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not provide the required submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on marital and family status.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the claims were barred by minutes of settlement and a release from a prior grievance.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant withdrew the allegations covered by the settlement and requested to amend her application to include new allegations of discrimination arising after the settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and directed the application to proceed solely on the new allegations.

The applicant, a high school student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed after being disciplined and transferred to another school.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in late 2008, and the application was filed approximately six months late in June 2010.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the discrimination was ongoing or that the delay was incurred in good faith due to fear of reprisal or lack of legal representation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, former building superintendents, alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment and sought an interim remedy to prevent their eviction from the building where they resided.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Landlord and Tenant Board had already dismissed the respondents' application to terminate the tenancy, rendering the eviction issue moot.

The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the remaining requested remedies and directed the matter to expedited mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex, approximately two years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay in filing was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to health issues, family responsibilities, ongoing severance negotiations, ignorance of the limitation period, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had retained counsel and raised Code-related issues within the limitation period, and failed to establish that her disability or other factors directly impeded her ability to file a timely application.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondent school board brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's medical documents related to her alleged environmental sensitivities.

The applicant objected to producing documents from a hospital assessment that contradicted her treating physicians' diagnosis.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents highly relevant to determining whether the applicant has a disability and what accommodation she requires, and ordered the applicant to produce the requested clinical notes and hospital records at her own expense.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The personal respondent filed a Response, but the corporate respondent failed to do so within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the corporate respondent to file a Response within three weeks, warning that failure to participate could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant, an insurance agent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal against an investigator for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of collusion, discriminatory investigation, and reprisal were based on speculation and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

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

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the notice by the deadline.

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 the application because 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 an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant's Estate to inquire whether it intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Estate did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that Tarion Warranty Corporation and the Tarion Ombudsperson Office discriminated against the claimant on the basis of disability by failing to consider her Code-related needs when determining that floor noises in her new home were not a warrantable major structural defect.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Tarion under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in Tarion's adjudicative proceeding, which addressed the human rights arguments.

The application against the Ombudsperson was also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no allegation that the claimant's disability was a factor in the Ombudsperson's decision not to pursue the complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

After a receiver was appointed and a stay of proceedings was issued against the respondent employer, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek leave to lift the stay and how she wished to proceed against the respondent union.

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

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled to determine whether a settlement agreement barred her human rights application.

She sought the adjournment to obtain legal advice.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had ample time to seek legal advice since the hearing was directed months prior, failed to update her address which delayed her receipt of the notice, and waited over two weeks after receiving actual notice before requesting the adjournment.

The Tribunal found no extraordinary circumstances to justify a late-stage adjournment.

The applicant, a parent of a student, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it provides educational services to students, not parents.

The Tribunal found that while some interactions between a parent and a school board may constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, allegations relating exclusively to the quality of educational services provided to the student, or interactions with third parties, do not.

The Application was dismissed in part, with the remaining allegations regarding direct interactions between the applicant and the respondent proceeding to a hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on sex, family status, and marital status, claiming the personal respondents refused to rent to her because she is a single mother.

The personal respondents requested that the application be dismissed against them, presenting a different version of facts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the factual disputes and credibility issues could not be resolved without a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by Rogers, a telecommunications company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that Rogers is a federally-regulated business.

The applicant failed to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Rogers is subject to federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment sought production of undisclosed documents from a Crown Brief detailing the applicant's prior interactions with police.

The respondent argued the documents were relevant as similar fact evidence and necessary for full answer and defence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the undisclosed documents, which primarily concerned domestic incidents and were not of a sexual nature or related to a workplace, were not arguably relevant to the allegations in the application.

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 the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay.