Dan Black

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding overlapping issues, including her ability to work and entitlement to benefits.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code at this stage but ordered it deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings on the same factual issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

He argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing because the Tribunal had an incorrect email address and that he was misinformed about the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that it had used the email address provided by the applicant, that he had previously communicated from that address, and that he had been sent multiple notices of the hearing date.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish that he did not receive notice through no fault of his own.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applicant's status as an undischarged bankrupt affected his ability to proceed with the application.

After receiving written submissions from the parties and the Trustee in Bankruptcy, the Tribunal found that the application could continue to mediation with notice to the Trustee.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of the remedy sought so the Trustee could determine its level of participation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his back injury.

Prior to filing their Response, the respondents requested an order for early disclosure of the applicant's complete WSIB file, arguing they could not meaningfully respond without it.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the Application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to know the case to meet, and reiterating the general rule that pleadings must be completed before preliminary requests for disclosure are entertained.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to disclose her complete WSIB claim file before the respondent filed its Response to the human rights application.

The applicant objected, arguing the file contained irrelevant, sensitive, and confidential information, and that disclosure would prejudice her ongoing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the WSIB file was arguably relevant because the application's allegations centered on the WSIB adjudication process, the respondent's alleged interference, and the applicant's medical condition and return to work.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose the file or provide authorization, and extended the respondent's time to file its Response.