Gail Misra

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through grievance settlements between the employer and the union.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a party to the minutes of settlement and did not implicitly accept their terms, as the removal of disciplinary letters from his file was a unilateral measure by the employer.

The request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 was denied.

The parties requested a late adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on consent to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's recent retention of counsel and health concerns constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the late request under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The adjournment was granted, with directions to advise the Tribunal within 30 days if the matter settled or needed to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent hospital failed to return her to work following a motor vehicle accident.

The application was filed up to nine years after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued that her delay was incurred in good faith due to depression and cognitive difficulties.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable medical explanation for the delay, particularly given that she had actively pursued and settled related civil litigation during the same period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress after he was confronted with video surveillance showing him working while on WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subjected to illegitimate pressure and had freely entered into the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated while on medical leave.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding that the arbitrator's awards focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient medical documentation and did not appropriately address whether the employer could have accommodated the applicant's disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the late allegations but allowed one timely allegation to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars.