Michelle Flaherty

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 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 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 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.

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

She subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to amend her application to add sex as a ground of discrimination, include new allegations regarding training and other workplace issues, and obtain production of her performance review documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add sex as a ground and to include the training allegations, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The request to add other workplace issues was denied as they did not relate to a Code ground.

The request for document production was granted.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability, arising from an incident involving access to a pool area.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be expedited and sought an interim remedy of a change of residential location and a meeting with a decision-maker.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the circumstances were not truly urgent.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary relief requested prior to a hearing on the merits.

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

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

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 pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release and settlement agreement.

The applicant argued she did not understand the documents, had instructed her counsel not to transmit them, and had refused to sign a second stand-alone release.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence, finding she understood the documents and only instructed her counsel not to transmit them a week after they were already delivered.

The Tribunal held that the signed release was binding and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response after being served with the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a Response within ten days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him and deem him to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation regarding discipline imposed in 2008 and a poster displayed in 2009.

The respondent argued the 2008 allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the 2008 events and the 2009 poster did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2008 as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The allegation regarding the 2009 poster was permitted to proceed.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent denied funding for the drug Phosphate Novartis under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege differential treatment, as he did not claim that others received funding for the drug or that his disability was a factor in the denial.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate her return to work.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred before April 16, 2009, when the respondent offered suitable work, making the April 20, 2010 application untimely.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, rejecting arguments that her mental health condition, fear of reprisal, or pending grievance proceedings justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 12-year-old student with a developmental disability, alleged discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement against the respondent school board regarding an incident where she refused to bring her backpack into the classroom.

The Tribunal admitted a surreptitious audio recording of the incident into evidence.

The Tribunal found that the school staff did not berate the applicant but coaxed her and provided incentives, modifying their approach appropriately.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not fail to accommodate the applicant's disability and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment for refusing to work on Thanksgiving.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction indicating the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as it did not allege reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the required timeframe.

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

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay.

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

After filing a reply stating he was not asking for further action, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his intent to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond.

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 (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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