Sheri D. Price

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the Tribunal addressed several requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal removed a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her personally.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal denied the trade union's request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting the current Code does not permit dismissing an application merely because it could be pursued under another statute like the Labour Relations Act.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he consents to removing a deceased personal respondent or to provide submissions on why the application should continue against him.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant named the wrong corporation as respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondents refused to employ her after purchasing the dental practice where she worked because she was on maternity leave.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request and directed them to file their Responses to the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application, but the respondents failed to file a Response within the permitted time frame.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the application came to the attention of the corporate respondent and two of the personal respondents based on emails sent to the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the correct names and directed the respondents to file their Responses by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former landlord and four personal respondents, alleging discrimination based on age, sex, and reprisal.

The allegations primarily concerned excessive noise from the adjacent apartment occupied by two of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning whether the adjacent tenants were proper parties, as the application did not appear to link their alleged conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining why the adjacent tenants should remain as respondents.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period, despite the Tribunal confirming they were aware of the application and providing them with the necessary forms.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by a final extended deadline would result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability after her employment was terminated while she was on maternity leave.

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

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress and that she did not understand it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily signed the release and was not subjected to illegitimate pressure or coercion.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to events prior to the signing of the release as an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations of a negative employment reference that occurred after the release was signed, holding that an agreement to waive future human rights protections is void as contrary to public policy.

The respondent requested that the human rights Application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the completion of a civil proceeding commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the Application was not barred because the civil claim, which alleged Charter breaches and negligence regarding the seizure of firearms, did not seek a remedy for human rights infringement.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the Application, finding that the applicant's interest in an expeditious resolution outweighed the small risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a labour arbitrator who was appointed to hear her termination grievance.

The applicant alleged the arbitrator breached the rules of natural justice by allowing the union and employer to settle the grievance without her consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that labour arbitrators are protected by judicial immunity from applications under the Human Rights Code for actions taken in the exercise of their adjudicative duties.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against him for criminally harassing one of the personal respondents.

The criminal proceedings concluded with the applicant entering into a peace bond.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the matter was finally determined by the criminal court and should be dismissed under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding that the criminal proceeding had concluded and there was no longer a basis for deferral.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' arguments for dismissal should be raised in a separate request, and cautioned the applicant regarding the need to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the potential for the application to be considered an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent failed to provide sick pay during a lawful strike.

The respondent argued that the collective agreement was not in effect during the strike and no employees were entitled to wages or sick pay, meaning there was no differential treatment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file written submissions explaining how the Application discloses a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, claiming her employment was terminated when she attempted to return from maternity leave after the dental practice was sold to the respondent.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the Application, arguing it was not a proper party as the applicant was not listed as an employee in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying whether she alleged the respondent itself violated her rights or was liable as a successor employer.

The applicant alleged that his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

He claimed his supervisor mistreated him because he is a continental African and that his employment was terminated following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The evidence showed that the supervisor treated all employees harshly, regardless of their background.

Furthermore, the employer terminated the applicant's employment after discovering he was working for another employer while claiming to be completely disabled from performing even modified duties for the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application.

The applicant argued that there were new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely disagreed with the previous decision and the underlying labour arbitrator's decision, which did not constitute valid grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in respect of services against the WSIB and a personal respondent, a claims adjudicator.

The respondents submitted that the personal respondent should be removed as a party pursuant to the statutory immunity provided by s. 179 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was an employee of the WSIB acting in good faith in the execution of her duties, and that the human rights application constituted a 'proceeding for damages' within the meaning of s. 179(1).

Accordingly, the personal respondent was statutorily immune and removed as a party to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment.

After her legal counsel withdrew, the Tribunal made multiple attempts to obtain her up-to-date contact information.

The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to provide current contact information, and respondent counsel was unable to deliver documents to her.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former waitress at the respondents' restaurant, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

She claimed the personal respondent made sexual comments, touched her inappropriately, and terminated her employment when she confronted him.

She also alleged post-termination reprisals, including a threat of civil action from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferring the respondents' evidence that she was terminated for poor work performance.

The Tribunal also held that the threat of civil action in a letter from the respondents' counsel was protected by absolute privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal claim.

The applicants in six separate human rights applications alleging employment discrimination based on disability requested that their applications be consolidated for mediation and adjudication.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted significant overlap in the allegations but also specific individual allegations.

To minimize inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the applications to be processed together and heard by one adjudicator, who will determine whether they should be consolidated or heard serially.

The Tribunal declined to force joint mediation but ordered all applications to be scheduled for mediation on the same date with one mediator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to add the condominium corporation as a respondent, alleging it was his actual employer and the entity that terminated his employment.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a party and found that the applicant alleged facts that could lead to a finding of a Code violation against the proposed respondent, and that adding the party would not cause real and substantial prejudice.

The request to add the respondent was granted.

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

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was provided to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application alleging age discrimination after it was deferred pending a WSIAT proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate.

The Tribunal also directed a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code because the WSIAT allowed the applicant's appeal on the underlying labour market re-entry issue.

Finally, the Tribunal requested written submissions on whether the personal respondent, a WSIB claims adjudicator, is immune from the proceeding under s. 179 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.