Michelle Flaherty

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability following her expulsion from the respondent's paralegal program.

In a Request for an Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought production of her complete academic file.

The respondent had disclosed most documents but withheld marked examinations citing policy concerns.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the marked examinations, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of academic performance raised in the proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the disclosure is subject to the implied undertaking rule, prohibiting the applicant from using the materials for any purpose outside the proceeding.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in housing based on disability requested that the hearing proceed based only on written materials due to her chemical sensitivities.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the case turns on the credibility of the witnesses, oral cross-examination is essential.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of the accommodation measures she requires for an in-person hearing or to file a formal request to testify by telephone.

The University respondents requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed their request for early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that interim decisions are not properly the subject of such requests.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondents were attempting to reargue issues and raise an abuse of process argument that they had not raised in their initial request to dismiss.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

The personal respondent filed a response, noting he was no longer employed by the corporate respondent and suggesting it may have dissolved.

The corporate respondent failed to file a response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to provide any available contact information for the corporate respondent, and directing the corporate respondent to either file a response or advise if it had dissolved or become insolvent.

The respondent school board brought a request to dismiss the applicant teacher's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had previously grieved his suspension, and an arbitrator had dismissed the grievance after considering an independent medical examination and concluding that the applicant was unfit to perform his duties and could not be accommodated.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration was a proceeding within the meaning of the Code and that the arbitrator had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's principles in Figliola regarding finality and the avoidance of duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application.