Michelle Flaherty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his employer and union failed to appropriately address his complaints of workplace harassment.

The applicant conceded that the harassment itself was not based on a Code ground, but argued the Code was engaged because the harassment caused him to develop a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application following a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the Code is not engaged merely because a disability arises from non-Code-related workplace interactions.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice requesting an update on the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant sought to set aside a settlement agreement and Form 25 reached during mediation, alleging he signed under duress due to pressure from the mediator and concerns about his disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the finality of a written settlement does not depend on the administrative closure of the file.

Applying the legal test for duress, the Tribunal concluded that the mediator's alleged conduct did not amount to illegitimate pressure or coercion of the will.

The request to void the settlement was denied and the file was closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing civil proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

After indicating she could not deal with the case at the time, the Tribunal requested clarification of her intentions.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and gender, as well as reprisal.

She brought a request for an interim remedy, seeking to be temporarily placed back to work on a specific shift with modified duties until a permanent position became available.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no clear Code-related reason to place the applicant on the requested shift at this early stage of the proceeding, and concluding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary remedy.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline specified in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the respondents with a final 10-day period to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

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 respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

She argued that the respondent and the union failed to advance the grievance and made inappropriate requests for medical documentation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the applicant caused the delay by refusing to provide relevant medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the dispute over medical disclosure within the grievance proceeding should be determined by the grievance arbitrator, not the Tribunal.

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, 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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, reprisal, and workplace harassment, specifically relating to the disclosure of her personal information.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because the same facts and issues were the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration and a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal found considerable overlap between the proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and WSIB proceedings.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she wished to continue the application and seek to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite a previous Interim Decision directing it to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Despite numerous directions from the Tribunal, the applicant failed to deliver the application or the Minutes of Settlement to the respondent and failed to file proof of service.

The Tribunal found that it could not properly consider the application due to the applicant's repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The application was dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her daughter's disability.

During the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly refused to comply with the Tribunal's direction to undergo cross-examination until certain preliminary issues were determined to her satisfaction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's refusal to abide by its directions demonstrated a lack of respect for the Tribunal's process and impeded its ability to fairly and efficiently determine the issues.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent school board requested the early dismissal of an application alleging breach of settlement, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed a complete application and that the allegations of failing to allow full parental engagement fell within the limitation period.

The respondent's request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's arguments that he was discriminated against because other organizations offered direct deposit, or because the WSIB offered it to its employees and grandfathered benefit recipients.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed on the issue of whether the failure to provide direct deposit amounted to constructive discrimination by denying the applicant equal access to benefits due to his mobility limitations.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Response to the respondents' Request for an Order During Proceedings, which sought early dismissal of the application.

The applicant claimed he missed the deadline due to a misunderstanding of information conveyed by Tribunal staff.

The respondents opposed the extension, citing the delay and the applicant's history of untimeliness.

The Tribunal granted a short five-day extension of time to file the Response pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to facilitate her return to work following a disability leave.

The union had also filed a grievance on her behalf alleging a failure to accommodate, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance process.

As all parties agreed to the deferral and the grievance involved the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application.