Jonathan Dye

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in employment requested the production of various documents from the personal and corporate respondents prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the production of Records of Employment, text messages, photographs, and an investigation report, with the identifying information of a third-party complainant redacted to balance probative value and prejudicial effect.

Requests for broad internal correspondence, settlement agreements, and certain corporate policies were denied for failing to establish arguable relevance.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the individual respondent and the corporate respondent.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application against the corporate respondent, arguing it is not liable for sexual solicitation by employees, and against the individual respondent, arguing she could not confer a benefit or advancement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to dismiss the application against either respondent without hearing evidence on the issues under sections 7, 8, and 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and gender identity following her termination from employment and the denial of ongoing WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success against the WSIB.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for filing her application almost two years after her termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the WSIB's decision to deny benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

He argued that his former representative was responsible for the late filing and that he was unaware delay was an issue until the dismissal decision was released.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence supporting his claim of ignorance regarding the delay issue, noting his signed Reply addressed the issue.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant did not meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling all claims under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic and psychological duress due to financial hardship and pressure from his lawyer.

The Tribunal found no evidence of legal duress that would vitiate the settlement agreement and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging termination due to disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and disclosure of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide a copy of one document listed in their arguably relevant documents list.

The remainder of the request was dismissed as premature, as the Tribunal's Rules require detailed witness statements and document disclosure 45 days prior to the hearing, and that deadline had not yet passed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' and reprisal after being terminated by the respondent.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not received a pardon for his criminal conviction, meaning he did not fall within the Code's definition of 'record of offences'.

Furthermore, the applicant did not allege any facts constituting reprisal as defined in the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to inadvertently sending the application to the wrong offices and an erroneous belief that medical documents were required.

The Tribunal found that the application was untimely and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.