Jamie Lynne McGinnis

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal after not being reassigned to a new school.

The respondent school board 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 by a settlement reached between the respondent and the applicant's union in a related grievance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not explicitly or implicitly accepted the settlement, as he had not signed the minutes of settlement, had not cashed the settlement cheque, and could not benefit from the non-monetary provisions due to being on disability leave.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision issued after a hearing in which the respondent did not participate.

The respondent claimed it did not receive notice of the proceeding or hearing due to an outdated corporate address, although it had sent a response to the Tribunal which was never received.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent did not have notice of the proceedings and granted the request for reconsideration, quashing the previous decision and remitting the matter to the normal process.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add family status as a ground of discrimination and to increase the damages sought by $20,000.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant knew the material facts when filing and that the delay caused prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the unfairness to the applicant of not being able to challenge the actual reasons for his termination outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated by the respondent.

The applicant had suffered a fractured tailbone and returned to work on modified hours.

The respondent terminated her employment, citing missed days and alleged customer complaints.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Code and that her disability was a factor in the termination.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and did not demonstrate undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $27,378.15 for lost wages.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the second day of the scheduled hearing, citing unavailability but providing no specific reason.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to establish extraordinary circumstances as required by the Practice Direction for requests made outside the standard rescheduling period.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, the respondent school board requested an order to exclude the applicant's treating physician from testifying or, alternatively, to compel production of his medical records and records from other community agencies.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the physician as an expert witness, ordered the production of the physician's records for a specified timeframe, and scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions regarding the production of records from other agencies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent's Request Stop Program was discriminatory because it was only available to women.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant conceded the program was a valid special program under the Code and sought to change his case to allege that the individual bus operator engaged in racial profiling when refusing his request for a stop.

The Tribunal refused the amendment, finding that allowing the applicant to advance a completely different case 18 months after filing the application would be highly prejudicial and unfair to the respondent.

The applicant sought reconsideration of the Registrar's administrative closure of his human rights application.

The application was closed because it did not identify a respondent and the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Incomplete Application, allegedly due to a postal code error.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding it unnecessary because the administrative closure was not a final decision.

The applicant remains free to file a new application and argue that his delay was incurred in good faith.