Andrea J. York

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age, including a failure to accommodate her disability-related needs.

The respondent requested that the failure to accommodate allegations be dismissed for delay, as they occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant merely claimed ignorance of her rights without showing she had no reason to make inquiries.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of documents, finding it was premature and overly broad.

The failure to accommodate allegations were dismissed.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the applicant was dismissed due to poor performance and that it had no knowledge of her pregnancy until she announced it during the termination meeting.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found the respondent's evidence more reliable.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent was aware of her pregnancy when the decision to terminate her employment was made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant also filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the CHRC's determination of its jurisdiction over the complaint, to avoid duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent determinations.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The respondent also requested that the applicant be ordered to provide a legible copy of his handwritten application.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions, and ordered the applicant to file a legible application within 28 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to pregnancy.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed cross-requests for the production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce arguably relevant communications and performance reviews containing feedback on the applicant's work performance, while denying her broader requests for surveillance footage and notebooks.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce unredacted documents relating to her mitigation efforts, as she had claimed lost income and alleged an inability to find work due to her pregnancy.

The applicant requested to reschedule the hearing of her human rights application because her husband was transferred to England for a nine-month project.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was untimely and the delay was unreasonable.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant only recently learned of the transfer, the request was made more than five months before the scheduled hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in his employment with the respondent.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federal work or undertaking and falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is a courier company whose core business involves interprovincial and international transportation, making it subject to federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, concluding the trial judge was amply justified on the record to find the respondent had a reasonable basis for its allegations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $24,000.