Glorie Alfred

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including discriminatory discharge and reprisal.

The applicant's union also filed grievances regarding unjust discipline and discharge, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of educational services based on disability.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple pre-hearing obligations, including filing a statement of additional facts, providing medical documentation for an accommodation request, and filing a witness list and documents.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing without providing any explanation.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a person of colour of Indo-Caribbean descent, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after he was not shortlisted for a Financial Reporting Officer position at the respondent school board.

He also alleged reprisal in the form of discipline and a request for a medical certificate after filing his human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not shortlisted because he lacked the required professional accounting designation, not because of any discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also found that the discipline was a legitimate response to the applicant's refusal to perform core job duties, and the request for a medical certificate was reasonable under the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the non-renewal of a commercial lease.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents (employees of the respondent Board).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability, had the ability to remedy any infringement, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals personally.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.