Anne Gregory

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the applicant's request to continue cross-examining a witness and several requests for orders during the proceeding.

The Tribunal limited further cross-examination, finding it had been sufficient to disclose fully and fairly all relevant matters.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests to remove opposing counsel, to amend previous interim decisions, and for the adjudicator to recuse himself for bias, finding no basis for any of the requests.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to order an individual respondent to attend the next hearing dates, noting that parties must be prepared to make submissions regarding her medical absence if she does not attend.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an Emergency After Hours Service worker, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his race, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent terminated the applicant's services after an investigation concluded he had instructed the answering service to defer calls until the office opened, effectively refusing to take emergency calls.

The applicant argued that deferring non-urgent calls was a common practice among non-racialized workers who were not disciplined.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed refused calls and that there was no evidence other workers engaged in the same practice.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish discrimination.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance proceedings under a collective agreement.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings on the same facts.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on preliminary grounds, including delay, abuse of process due to prior Minutes of Settlement, and no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time.

It held that permitting the applicant to re-litigate the incident covered by the Minutes of Settlement would be an abuse of process, rejecting her argument of economic duress.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The matter was directed to mediation as agreed by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and sought to add her union as a respondent.

The application was filed nearly four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The applicant argued her delay was due to her disability and the effects of medication.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that she was practically prevented from filing in a timely way, noting her active participation in a grievance arbitration during the same period.

The Tribunal also declined to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual basis to infer discrimination in its representation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicants, individuals with intellectual disabilities residing in group homes, filed human rights complaints against the respondent unions.

They alleged that legal picketing by the unions at their group homes during lawful strikes constituted discrimination with respect to services and occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Code does not govern the relationship between a union and those using services at a place the union's members are picketing, as the union members were acting as union members rather than service providers.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a person with intellectual disabilities living in a group home, alleged that picketing by the respondent union during a legal strike violated his Code rights.

As the applicant lacked legal capacity, his sister sought to be appointed as his litigation guardian.

The respondent union opposed the appointment, arguing that the sister had a conflict of interest due to her historical acrimony towards unions and picketing.

The Tribunal found that a family member can be a litigation guardian unless there is a clear, demonstrated conflict of interest with the incapable person.

The Tribunal concluded that the sister's strong views against the union did not establish a conflict of interest with her brother, and appointed her as litigation guardian.