Brian Silva

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on marital status and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged she was the only employee not in a relationship and was terminated without cause, but failed to link her treatment to her marital status or show she had attempted to enforce a Code right.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the allegations lacked a substantive link to the Code.

The applicant, a trainee welder placed by an employment agency, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age.

He claimed a training coordinator asked his age, told him he was too old for the job, and deliberately failed to train him so he would be terminated.

The Tribunal found that while the coordinator did ask the applicant's age, the comment alone did not violate the Code.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of differential treatment or adverse consequences, as the coordinator was not responsible for training and the applicant received the same training as others before voluntarily quitting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and age after being fired from a business owned by his wife's uncle.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the owner did not fall within the Code's definition of family status, which is limited to parent and child relationships.

Furthermore, the applicant could not provide any evidence linking his termination to his age.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment as a nanny because of her pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim regarding the same termination, which resulted in an award for lost wages and general damages.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the Employment Standards proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and that it would not be unfair to dismiss the application.

The application was dismissed to avoid relitigation of essentially the same dispute.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued he relied on incorrect advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and was busy with school and family matters.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the correct deadline six weeks before it expired but failed to act diligently.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate his back injury.

The applicant had also appealed a WSIB decision denying him full Loss of Earnings benefits to the WSIAT.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, considered whether to defer the application.

Finding a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings, and a real risk of inconsistent findings regarding the employer's duty to accommodate, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant, a former nanny for the respondents, filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards proceeding.

Finding significant overlap in the issues and noting the Ministry of Labour proceeding was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to prevent duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.