Devon Michael Paul

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it had an interest as the bargaining agent and knowledge of the facts.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union almost always has an interest in participating in Tribunal proceedings involving its members and the workplace.

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

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, the City of Toronto, and his union.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer respondents on consent, pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's conduct to a discriminatory ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination.

After multiple hearing dates and adjournments, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled continuation date, instead sending an email requesting the adjudicator be replaced due to alleged bias and stating the hearing was a waste of time.

The Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration, noting the risk of conflicting decisions if both proceedings continued concurrently.

The applicants requested to reactivate their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending the resolution of related union grievances.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the applications should be dismissed for delay, abuse of process, and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request as the grievance processes had concluded, but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the respondents' preliminary objections regarding delay, section 45.1 of the Code, abuse of process, and reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that her previous representative withdrew his services and she had recently retained a new representative, requiring more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining a new representative shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on the same issue, which proceeded to arbitration where the respondent conceded liability for a specific period.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the issues raised in the application were substantially the same as those in the grievances, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical reasons and subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The bias allegation was based on the adjudicator's slight personal acquaintance with the intervenor's counsel and her prior participation in a mediation session.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's medical documentation provided some basis for her inability to attend the hearing due to an acute episode of back pain.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer, his union, a union representative, and the WSIB, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union and its representative should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously filed an unsuccessful duty of fair representation complaint with the OLRB based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations and dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the WSIB, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it merely challenged a benefits decision without raising a valid Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested to dismiss allegations pre-dating December 11, 2011 for delay, and requested a summary hearing for the remaining surveillance allegation.

The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations, finding no good faith explanation for the delay, as waiting for an internal investigation to conclude does not justify delay.

The request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant's request to amend was dismissed without prejudice, and the union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after being unsuccessful in two job competitions.

After hearing the applicant's case and the respondent's key witness, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of racial bias, noting that the successful candidate was clearly superior and the applicant's own references did not recommend her for the position.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the substance of the application had been dealt with in another proceeding or amounted to an abuse of process.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by hiring new fixed-term employees for a temporary exhibit without posting the positions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the union's particulars did not establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement did not oblige the employer to post temporary assignments of less than six months.

The employer's motion to dismiss the grievance was granted.