Erin Hallock

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.

A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing after her adjournment request was denied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking disclosure of documents relating to a junior litigation lawyer role, interview notes for other employees, and a copy of the Tribunal's transcript of a cross-examination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents did not possess the requested documents regarding the lawyer role, the interview notes were not arguably relevant, and no transcript of the cross-examination existed as the adjudicator's personal notes are not producible.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, noting that the Member's case had previously been dealt with by another Committee of the College, making the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions in the Police Services Act make materials from OIPRD proceedings inadmissible before the Tribunal.

The respondent was directed to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, family status, and reprisal.

As part of her application, she challenged the constitutionality of subsection 48(3) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing it contravenes the Human Rights Code.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested to intervene solely on the constitutional issue.

The Tribunal granted the Ministry's request to intervene, noting its mandate to participate in proceedings where legislation is challenged and finding that its intervention would provide a more fulsome record.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against a fraternity and a university.

The university requested a deferral pending its internal investigation, which the Tribunal denied because an internal investigation is not a proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The fraternity's request for a summary hearing was also denied.

The applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to vary remedies and add a local fraternity chapter as a respondent was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal, relating to workplace accommodation and the denial of sick leave benefits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

Applying its general approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding to schedule the hearing in May or June 2014, after the original June dates were cancelled due to the respondent's unavailability.

The respondent proposed dates in late July, September, or October.

The Tribunal noted the applicant did not file a formal request to expedite under Rule 21.

Balancing the parties' positions, the Tribunal scheduled the hearing for July 29-31, 2014.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, claiming his supervisor targeted him after he disclosed he was gay, and that his subsequent termination was discriminatory.

He also alleged the employer failed to investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the supervisor's treatment of the applicant was unfair and inappropriate, it was not connected to his sexual orientation but rather to his performance and her history of being difficult with new employees.

The termination was found to be based on legitimate performance issues.

The Tribunal also held that an employer's failure to investigate a human rights complaint is not an independent breach of the Code where no underlying discrimination is found to have occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application and Reply to correct contact information, amend remedies sought, and clarify factual accounts.

The respondent consented to the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments would provide clarity to the pleadings and cause no prejudice to the respondent, in accordance with Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance.

She argued that the delay in the grievance process was prejudicial and that the subject matter differed.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the issues in the application and the grievance, both relating to workplace accommodation.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that continued deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of two previous Tribunal decisions that deemed it to have accepted the applicant's allegations of age discrimination due to its failure to file a response.

The respondent argued that internal management conflicts caused its former General Manager to fail to respond to the Tribunal's notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had received proper notice of the application and the consequences of failing to respond, and that fairness did not warrant setting aside the decisions to allow a late response.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to address new allegations raised in the applicant's Reply regarding a workplace transfer and a performance appraisal.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request under Rule 1.7(c), allowing the respondent to file an amended Response and setting deadlines for the amended pleadings.

The respondents requested an order removing the individual respondent and striking certain paragraphs from an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the individual respondent, noting he was alleged to be the primary decision-maker who did not renew the applicant's contract, rather than merely an instrument of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal also declined to strike paragraphs related to the applicant's earnings and the impact of the alleged events, leaving those issues for the hearing adjudicator.

The requests were denied.

In an interim decision regarding production requests, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written consent for the disclosure of her WSIB file and personal health information in the respondents' possession.

The Tribunal found that sections 59(6) and 181(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act do not bar disclosure when the employee consents.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce medical records related to her injuries and ability to work, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation and remedy, but declined to order production of her entire medical history.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, sexual orientation, and marital status, both parties filed requests for the production of documents.

The respondent sought the applicant's Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) files, while the applicant sought a list of administrative positions and summaries of accommodation actions taken for other employees.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the OHS and WSIB files, finding them arguably relevant to the accommodation process.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the list of administrative positions but denied the applicant's request for other employees' files, finding it overly broad and speculative without a factual foundation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination occurring between March and December 2012, including issues related to the use of medical marijuana as an accommodation.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that it would significantly expand the scope of the proceedings, necessitate new pleadings, and require the cancellation of the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could file a new application for the 2012 allegations.

The applicant, who is Kurdish, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him by terminating his employment after discovering his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee but was on a one-day tryout, and the decision not to hire him was based on his performance compared to another candidate, not his ethnicity.

However, the Tribunal found that the individual respondent violated section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by asking the applicant where he was from during the tryout, as this directly elicited information about his place of origin.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,500 in general damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The respondent requested to dismiss parts of the applicant's human rights application for delay, arguing that allegations prior to June 2010 were untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, sex, sexual orientation, and marital status, claiming a failure to accommodate her workplace injury and differential treatment regarding her same-sex marriage.

The Tribunal found that the events from July 2008 to June 2010 constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, as they were sufficiently proximate in time, similar in nature, and involved the same parties.

The respondent's request to dismiss the allegations was denied.