Frances Gallop

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a bus driver to a non-driving position after he was terminated for a fatal accident and convicted of careless driving.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the proper test for discharge and unreasonably found the employment relationship was not irretrievably damaged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the relevant factors, including the grievor's record, remorse, and the nature of the misconduct, in exercising his statutory discretion to substitute a penalty.

The applicant, a hairstylist of aboriginal status, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, colour, and place of origin.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the Tribunal could not conclude that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to proceed to the next stage in the hearing process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment at the respondent's Darlington Nuclear facility.

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis that employment-related matters concerning nuclear facilities are federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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 employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Ontario Power Generation and several individuals.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's employment at a nuclear generating station falls under federal regulation.

The Tribunal agreed, noting previous decisions confirming that the nuclear power sector is federally regulated for human rights purposes.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former resident of a women's shelter, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal by the respondent shelter.

She claimed staff made inappropriate comments about her religious beliefs and prohibited her from conducting Bible study in common areas.

She also alleged the respondent filed a missing person report as a reprisal for her complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success for the discrimination claims, as there was no evidence of adverse treatment linked to creed.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed, as the respondent's actions in filing the missing person report were consistent with its safety policies and not retaliatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking production of personnel files and job offers of other employees, as well as staff meeting minutes.

The Tribunal denied the request for personnel files and job offers, finding them not arguably relevant to the allegations of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the production of staff meeting minutes, as they were arguably relevant to the respondent's stated performance concerns regarding the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file more detailed witness statements and clarify the documents she intended to rely upon at the hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of emails, job applications of other employees, and meeting notes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the meeting notes if they could be located, as the respondent conceded their potential relevance.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for the emails, which no longer existed, and the job applications, which were deemed not arguably relevant to the specific allegations of reprisal remaining in the application.

The applicant filed four human rights applications alleging that inheritance and other cheques were stolen or withheld from her by various respondents, including shelters, government ministries, and Canada Post.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applications had no reasonable prospect of success as they failed to link the allegations to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code or establish the respondents' responsibility.

The application against Canada Post was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it is a federally regulated enterprise.

The applicant, a former resident of a women's shelter, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin regarding various incidents at the shelter, including pressure to change her children's school, denial of supplies, comments about her baby, and refusal of entry after she moved out.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the respondent's actions and the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend her application to add a reprisal claim, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in services and reprisal.

Following an unsuccessful mediation-adjudication session, a hearing was scheduled to hear evidence.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and provided no explanation or communication to the Tribunal.

Noting that the applicant bears the responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not provide any explanation or request an adjournment.

The applicant had also failed to comply with previous Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.