Ann Burke

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent college regarding a 2014 leave of absence, inappropriate comments by professors, and a group assignment where students refused to work with him.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2014 leave of absence allegations as untimely, finding the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the professors' comments and the group assignment to proceed, finding sufficient notice was provided and the respondent failed to establish they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent college.

Following a history of vexatious communications, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application for abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly sought adjournments on the basis of running a business, which the Tribunal denied.

At the peremptory summary hearing, the applicant renewed his adjournment request and, upon its denial, terminated his participation in the teleconference.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, which was deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

Over three years after the grievance was withdrawn, the applicant requested to re-activate her application at the Tribunal.

The applicant argued the delay was due to her responsibilities caring for an autistic child and confusion over representation.

The Tribunal found these were not good reasons for the extraordinary delay and noted prejudice to the respondents.

The request to re-activate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a student at Seneca College, alleged discrimination based on disability and reprisal after his email privileges were suspended and he was suspended from school following incidents related to his mental health.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to actions taken by York University, as they did not involve Seneca College.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations regarding the suspension of email privileges and school suspension to proceed, finding the applicant may be able to establish a link between these actions and his mental health disability.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an in-person summary hearing, accommodation in the form of a typist and counsellor, and permission to record the hearing for online streaming.

The Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing as the medical assessment did not support it as a necessary accommodation.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to have a support person attend the teleconference to assist with notes and support.

The request to record the hearing for public consumption was denied as inappropriate.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging age and gender discrimination in employment filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive production of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal reviewed the nine categories of requested documents, which included student evaluations, resumes of other faculty members, and hiring policies.

The Tribunal granted the request for documents regarding hiring policies, mandatory use of student evaluations, and a specific apology email, but denied or deferred the requests for student evaluations, faculty resumes, and faculty demographic information on the basis of relevance and proportionality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, concerning an ongoing failure to hire him for part-time teaching.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondent, the department Chair, as a party.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent's discretionary hiring decisions were central to the allegations, making it inappropriate to remove her from the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case and sought the removal of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage, finding that the applicant's ability to prove his allegations should be dealt with at a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the individual respondent should be removed as a party.

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

After the first day of the hearing, the applicant's counsel withdrew.

The applicant failed to file a required written statement of evidence and failed to appear at the continued hearing dates.

Despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact the applicant and obtain a written explanation for his absence, no adequate explanation was provided.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and race.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the allegations had already been addressed and dismissed in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request and dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the NHL, the Tribunal ruled on evidentiary and production issues.

The Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of two former officials regarding the NHL's general culture around injury reporting, finding it irrelevant, tantamount to character evidence, and not qualifying as similar fact evidence.

The Tribunal permitted another witness to testify by teleconference.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for broad document production concerning other officials' injuries, grievances, and promotions, concluding the documents were not relevant to the specific allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal determined how pay equity adjustments should be incorporated into collective agreements between the hospital and the nurses' union.

The Tribunal held that under subsection 9(3) of the Pay Equity Act, all positions in a job class must be adjusted by the same dollar amount, meaning all levels of the salary schedule must receive the adjustment, not just the job rate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the newly negotiated collective agreements were 'relevant' under subsection 13(10) because they had not yet taken the pay equity adjustments into account, and therefore the adjusted rates must be incorporated into them.

The complainants alleged that the respondent Union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and signing a collective agreement for franchised stores without submitting it to the membership for ratification.

The Board found that the Union's officers honestly and reasonably believed that a prior agreement, which had been ratified by the membership, authorized them to enter into the franchise agreement without a further vote.

The Board concluded that the Union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.