Anne Marie Heenan

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against her former employer.

The HRTO had found that the applicant signed a full and final release during a mediation, and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, its credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a bus driver to a non-driving position after he was terminated for a fatal accident and convicted of careless driving.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the proper test for discharge and unreasonably found the employment relationship was not irretrievably damaged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the relevant factors, including the grievor's record, remorse, and the nature of the misconduct, in exercising his statutory discretion to substitute a penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision declining to reactivate her application after a workplace grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal found she failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay in requesting reactivation, as her medical evidence did not establish she was prevented from pursuing her legal rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, its assessment of the medical evidence entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application on various preliminary grounds, including that the allegations were barred by a prior settlement agreement, were out of time, had no reasonable prospect of success, or constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that some allegations were barred by the settlement agreement and others were out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation based on an oral collateral agreement allegedly made at mediation, applying the parol evidence rule.

However, the Tribunal allowed several other allegations to proceed, finding they were not barred by the settlement and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application as a whole for abuse of process was denied.