Ann E. Burke

The applicant, a student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal by the respondent college.

The applicant requested an interim remedy seeking immediate compensation for tuition, housing, and allowance, as well as reinstatement of his education.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting it and that it was not just or appropriate in the circumstances.

The Tribunal granted a request for a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed a summary hearing and deferred the applicant's request for document production until after the hearing.

The applicant refused to provide dates for the summary hearing until his document request was answered, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal acted reasonably and within its rights to control its own process when faced with the applicant's refusal to cooperate.

The applicant, a part-time teacher, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college reprised against him for a previous application by not assigning him to teach a specific course.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant could not provide evidence linking the course cancellation to his previous application, relying instead on speculation and a desire for disclosure.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration because the applicant had not received notice of the respondents' request to dismiss.

Upon reconsidering the issue of delay, the Tribunal found that the application was filed 18 months after the last alleged discriminatory incident, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that subsequent internal investigations and academic appeals constituted continuing acts of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded it was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to continue her human rights applications after signing a Memorandum of Settlement and Release at mediation, alleging she signed under duress, coercion, and deception.

The Tribunal found no compelling reason to set aside the settlement, noting the applicant was represented by counsel at the time and provided no evidence of being forced or threatened to sign.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the applications to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed them.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status, claiming her relationship with her common law spouse was a factor in her layoff.

The respondent maintained the layoff was due to a business downturn and a belief that the applicant had leaked confidential information to a competitor associated with her spouse.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was based on its belief that the applicant had disclosed confidential information, not on the identity of her spouse or her marital status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer suspended two full-time employees and requested the respondent union to refer replacement employees pursuant to the collective agreement.

The union refused, asserting the employer had no right to suspend the employees.

The employer applied to the Board under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union's refusal constituted an unlawful strike or a threat of an unlawful strike.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no actual work stoppage or threat of one, as the suspended employees continued to work and the core dispute was a matter of collective agreement interpretation appropriate for arbitration.