Sophie Martel

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Following her termination, she signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

She subsequently argued the release was signed under economic duress and that her mental disability prevented her from fully understanding it.

The Tribunal found that the economic pressures faced by the applicant were typical of a termination and did not amount to coercion of will.

The Tribunal also found she had sufficient time to seek advice and understand the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and family status.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested the production of her complete employment file and her manager's employment file.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting that the respondent had already produced the applicant's complete employment file, and the applicant failed to establish the relevance of her manager's employment file.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided notice to the applicant by mail and email.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his Application to correct typographical errors and add subsequent incidents of alleged discrimination.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it timely and noting that the additional allegations were of a similar character to the original claims without causing prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant, a school lunch supervisor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisals after being terminated for allegedly using physical force against a student.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa (the Society) investigated the incident and confirmed the allegations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the Society should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations against the Society related to procedural unfairness in its investigation, not discrimination under the Code.

As the Society was not the applicant's employer and there was no link between its actions and a protected ground, the application against the Society was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and constructive dismissal.

Prior to this, she filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging constructive dismissal and other employment standards violations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

Despite the applicant's objection that the ESA claim did not include sexual harassment, the Tribunal found that the constructive dismissal claim was central to both proceedings and deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration process.

She argued the arbitration hearing was cancelled without good reason.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was only briefly rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances and that the grievance process was not unduly delayed.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age against TD Bank Group.

The Tribunal initiated a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, as the respondent is a federally regulated employer.

The applicant agreed that the employment relationship is not governed by the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the respondents.

The respondents requested to dismiss the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year before the application was filed, arguing they were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the alleged events, which involved a succession of sexual comments, touching, and innuendo culminating in the applicant quitting her job, constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Because the last incident occurred within one year of the filing date, the application was timely and the request to dismiss was denied.