Joseph Kennedy

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against her former employer.

She argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding corporate liability for an employee's harassment, specifically whether the employee was a 'directing mind' or had a 'significant connection' to the employer.

The Tribunal found that the employee in question did not have supervisory authority or the power to hire, fire, or discipline, and therefore was not part of the directing mind.

The Tribunal also found that the 'significant connection' test did not apply to the facts.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment at a coffee shop because of her pregnancy, relying on text messages from a co-worker stating the owner felt she could not do the job as she got bigger.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner who made the termination decision was unaware of the applicant's pregnancy and dismissed her for performance reasons.

The Tribunal further held that even if the co-worker's false text messages constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for an employee's harassment under section 46.3(1).

The respondent in a human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's financial documents, job offer records, and entire medical file.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered production of the financial and job offer documents as they were relevant to wage loss and mitigation.

The Tribunal found the request for the entire medical file overly broad but ordered production of limited medical records relating to the pregnancy and reported stress, as the applicant claimed compensation for injury to dignity.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a deposit refund and delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants had entered into an agreement to purchase a new home and paid a $27,000 deposit, but the transaction failed to close due to a dispute over funds.

The applicants subsequently sued the vendor in Superior Court and settled the action for $60,000, signing a full and final release.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants were not owners entitled to delayed closing compensation, did not meet the statutory requirements for a deposit refund, and were precluded from further recovery by the full and final release.