Elisha Jamieson-Davies

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

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to economic duress, lack of capacity due to visual impairment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had realistic alternatives to signing the release, had the capacity to understand it, and failed to establish that the respondent intentionally deceived him.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

At the commencement of the hearing, it became evident that the respondent had not received the applicant's further written submissions, which argued the release should be set aside due to misrepresentation and the applicant's disabilities.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing to provide the respondent an opportunity to prepare a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a volunteer opportunity at a withdrawal management centre.

The applicant named both St. Leonard's Community Services and Brant Community Healthcare System (BCHS) as respondents.

BCHS filed a request to be removed as a respondent, arguing it had no role in the operation of the centre.

The applicant agreed in writing that BCHS was not a proper respondent and did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered BCHS removed as a respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after being denied a volunteer position on an advisory committee at a detoxification centre where he was an active client.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary stage, arguing that committee membership is not a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as volunteer work may be considered 'employment' under section 5 of the Code.