Michelle Flaherty

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 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 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 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 an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and marital status against Shaw Satellite G.P. and several individual employees.

The Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue, noting the corporate respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated business.

The respondents confirmed the corporate respondent is an inter-provincial federally-regulated telecommunications company.

The applicant did not file responding submissions.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the federally-regulated company and its employees under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed 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.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

He argued he did not receive notice of the proceedings due to a change in his email address.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant either received notice or failed to receive it due to his own fault in not updating his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled one-day hearing because three of his proposed witnesses would be absent due to work-related obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Notice of Hearing required parties to advise of unavailability within 14 days, and that under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that witness unavailability due to work obligations is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant, a 58-year-old district sales manager, alleged discrimination in employment based on age and disability after her position was eliminated following a one-year medical leave.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, relying on a supervisor's comment analogizing her medical leave to an abandonment and a workplace message to hire only 'dumb, young, and good looking' employees.

The Tribunal concluded that age and disability were factors in the decision to eliminate her position, but deferred the determination of remedy pending further information from the applicant regarding mitigation and income.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant indicated that he would not apply to have the stay lifted and was not seeking to place the application in abeyance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability requested that the adjudicator recuse herself and reconsider procedural decisions made during the hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of decisions not to hear similar fact evidence at that stage and regarding the role of his co-agent.

He also sought recusal on the basis that the adjudicator may have predetermined that he did not have a disability.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that procedural rulings are not final decisions subject to reconsideration, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or predetermination to warrant recusal.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

She sought to amend her Application to include ongoing discrimination, to obtain a training video, and to compel the respondent to disclose contact information for six proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Application and ordered the production of the training video, finding it arguably relevant to the accommodation allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request for witness contact information at this stage, directing the applicant to first provide summaries of their expected evidence.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance proceeding.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with natural justice and the Charter, and that the grievance proceeding was biased and procedurally flawed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue points already addressed and had not established any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicants filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by filing a further human rights application.

The respondent argued that no enforceable settlement agreement was reached because the minutes of settlement were never signed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code strictly requires a settlement agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties to be enforceable.

Since the agreement was unsigned, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to proceed based on written materials only and directed her to file submissions regarding any request for accommodation at an oral hearing.

The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which stayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay was lifted, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal of her intention to proceed within 30 days of the stay's expiration.

The CCAA stay ended and the respondent was placed into receivership.

The applicant failed to make submissions within the required timeframe, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicants filed 81 applications alleging that the survivor benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against them on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the applications on the basis that they were filed outside the limitation period.

The Tribunal ordered that one application proceed as a lead case on the issue of delay, and held the remaining 80 applications in abeyance pending that determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability because his son, who was accommodated to play in a lower age division, was not permitted to play in tournaments outside his own division.

The applicant requested an interim remedy to allow his son to participate in specific upcoming tournaments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, or that it was necessary to ensure a complete and effective final remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employer failed to recall him to work since 2006.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The Tribunal found that the limitation period began in 2006 and the application was filed approximately three years late.

Finding no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith, and noting the applicant had already filed previous applications regarding the same subject-matter, the Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely and an abuse of process.