Ann C. Dinnert

The applicant, a former Client Support Analyst, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (clinical depression).

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to ongoing performance issues and an inability to get along with her supervisor, and that the decision was made prior to her sick leave and without knowledge of her disability.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her disability was a factor in the termination.

The application was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received notice but failed to attend the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process between the applicant and the respondent.

The respondent and the applicant's bargaining agent agreed with the deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the grievance was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order striking her two Superior Court proceedings, which claimed damages of $8.2 million and $100,000.

The Divisional Court found that an appeal of a final order in these amounts falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeals were transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the administration and calculation of her entitlements under the Ontario Works Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals under the Act are restricted to questions of law.

Because the appellant raised only administrative and factual complaints, the court found no error of law.