Allison Taylor

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal in the respondent school board's failure to hire him in 2006 and 2007, and sought to include earlier allegations of discrimination dating back to 1995.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2006 allegations were out of time and could only be used as background information for the reprisal claim.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents from the application, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for its employees and capable of responding to the alleged Code infringements.

The plaintiff appealed the trial judge's decision denying her aggravated and punitive damages in a wrongful dismissal action, despite the trial judge extending the notice period by two months due to the manner of dismissal.

The defendant sought leave to appeal the trial judge's decision to award no costs of the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion on damages.

The Court also refused the defendant's leave to appeal costs, finding no error in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded for the appeal.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The respondent movie theatre chain brought a motion to adjourn the combined hearing of three human rights complaints regarding the lack of captioning in theatres.

The respondent argued the hearing should be delayed until new, related complaints filed by one of the complainants against other major theatre chains were referred to the Tribunal, to ensure an industry-wide resolution.

The complainants and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing prejudice from delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding without the other major exhibitors could lead to a multiplicity of proceedings and unfairness, and noted that the complainant herself had generated some of the delay by filing new complaints.

The Tribunal also removed two personal respondents on consent.

The complainants, who are deaf, alleged that the respondent movie theatre chain failed to provide captioning services.

The respondent brought motions to combine the complaints, adjourn the hearing, and postpone its disclosure obligations, while one complainant brought a motion to amend his complaint to add an allegation of reprisal based on an e-mail sent by the respondent to advocacy groups.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motions, noting the likelihood of related complaints being referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the e-mail did not name the complainant and constituted lobbying rather than a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought judicial review of an employment standards officer's order finding it to be a related employer to a bankrupt company and ordering it to pay over $500,000 in vacation, termination, and severance pay.

The court exercised its discretion to permit judicial review because the applicant lacked the funds to pay the deposit required for a mandatory review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court quashed the officer's order, finding no evidence to support the conclusion that the applicant was created with the intent or effect of defeating the purposes of the Employment Standards Act.

In the remedial phase of a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at Famous Players theatres, the Tribunal considered whether to lift a non-admittance policy for wheelchair users at the Uptown theatre pending its closure.

The Tribunal found it was functus officio regarding ordering interim renovations or extending the closure date.

However, the Tribunal ruled that the blanket ban on manual wheelchair users was an unjustified safety measure.

The Tribunal ordered the ban revoked subject to specific conditions, including limiting the number of wheelchair users per auditorium and requiring an implementation plan, while maintaining the ban for power wheelchairs and scooters due to evacuation risks.

The applicant sought an adjournment of her Employment Standards Act review hearing because she suffered an anxiety attack and was unable to attend.

The responding employer opposed the adjournment, noting it had flown a witness from the USA and was ready to proceed.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting the applicant's history of anxiety, but directed her to provide a medical note confirming her incapacity and ordered the parties to exchange documents prior to the rescheduled hearing.