Blair McCreadie

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that institutional delays at the WSIAT, estimated at 18 to 24 months, justified immediate reactivation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the significant overlap of issues remained and that reactivating the application would result in concurrent proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a related civil action.

The civil action was discontinued after the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed the request to reactivate approximately six and a half months after the civil proceedings concluded, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the delay and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the name of the respondent, noting that his former employer had been sold and renamed.

The respondent consented to amending its name to BlueLine Rental Inc., but opposed adding the purchasing entity as a respondent.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name to BlueLine Rental Inc. and directed the applicant to make any request to add the purchasing entity when the deferred application is re-activated.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's representative requested to withdraw the application with conditions shortly before the hearing, and then advised they would not attend.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after being evicted from various homeless shelters for using medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the provincial ministries that fund the shelters.

The applicant conceded the application against the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Minister of Community and Social Services, finding that the provision of funding alone was insufficient to establish a link between the Ministry and the alleged discriminatory acts of the shelters.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing WSIB proceeding regarding the applicant's workplace injury and termination.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Code because the WSIB proceeding was still ongoing.

However, applying the Calabria factors, the Tribunal found significant overlap between the issues in the two proceedings and deferred the application until a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer issues a final decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was denied services at an emergency shelter in retaliation for an ongoing civil action against the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the civil action sought overlapping remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was active and the applicant intended to amend it to include the events alleged in the application, creating a risk of duplication.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant, a person with a learning disability and in receipt of ODSP benefits, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a food bank operated by the Salvation Army.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of creed, disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal, primarily concerning a requirement to sign a consent form to release personal information in order to access services.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the requirement to sign the waiver, or any other alleged differential treatment, to a protected Code ground.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after having signed a full and final release in favour of the respondent upon his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given sufficient time to consider the separation offer and seek independent legal advice, and that there was no compelling reason to set aside the binding release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after his employer learned he smoked marijuana, to which he claimed addiction.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing the termination was for performance issues and they had no knowledge of any disability.

The Tribunal found that given the timing of the termination relative to the employer learning of the marijuana use, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and could proceed.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for his actions.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars from the applicant and an opportunity to file an amended Response.

The applicant consented to the relief sought and provided the further particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file any amended Response within three weeks.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant provided medical evidence confirming a learning disability and memory impairment, which caused her to confuse the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that these circumstances outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an ongoing WSIB appeal dealt with the same substance, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, as the WSIB appeal was still pending and had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings due to the significant overlap in facts and issues.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend without providing an explanation.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of the allegations.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

At a pre-hearing conference involving multiple related employer, sale of business, and unfair labour practice applications, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the order of proceeding.

The applicant unions alleged that the corporate responding parties conspired to form a new entity to circumvent bargaining rights.

The Board directed that the corporate responding parties proceed first to call their evidence, followed by the Carpenters union, and then the applicant unions.

In an application for certification, the responding party requested reconsideration of a ruling that ordered the counting of ballots from a representation vote, arguing the union improperly changed its position on challenged voters.

The Board denied the reconsideration, finding the union had not resiled from its position.

The Board also granted party status to two intervenors who claimed to be the true employers of the subject employees, limiting their participation to evidence and submissions concerning their relationship with the responding party and the employees.