Katherine M. Pollock

Donald Schultz, a director at Canada Lands Company CLC, was terminated with cause for alleged misconduct during procurement processes.

The court found that while some of Schultz's actions were inappropriate (e.g., providing a draft recommendation memo with confidential competitor information, attending social events with proponents during procurement), they did not constitute misconduct severe enough to warrant termination with cause, especially considering mitigating factors such as tight timelines, the employer's inconsistent policy enforcement, and lack of proper investigation.

The court awarded Schultz 12 months' reasonable notice, benefits, and a portion of his bonus, but denied moral and punitive damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The respondent requested that allegations prior to June 2014 be dismissed as untimely and sought a summary hearing.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add two allegations of reprisal relating to a forced medical leave and subsequent termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations prior to June 2014, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's amendments to add the reprisal allegations, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant, pregnant with twins via in vitro fertilization, requested a fetal reduction to a single fetus.

The respondent hospital refused, citing its multidisciplinary consensus policy that limits such procedures to higher-order pregnancies or cases involving fetal abnormalities.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services based on sex (pregnancy) and family status.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the hospital's policy distinguished based on medical risk and the type of pregnancy, not on the protected grounds of pregnancy or family status.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the hearing venue be moved from Toronto to Ottawa, citing childcare responsibilities and an upcoming childbirth.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the alleged discrimination occurred in Toronto where its witnesses were located.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged discrimination—the refusal of medical services—occurred in Toronto, and the applicant's childcare difficulties were insufficient to justify changing the venue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status and sex regarding a medical service.

Both parties requested anonymization of their names due to the sensitive nature of the medical service.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to use initials, finding it appropriate due to potential stigma.

However, the Tribunal denied the respondent hospital's request for anonymization, noting that the hospital publicly advertises the medical services at issue and no individual clinicians were named as respondents.

The respondents requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised essentially the same issues as the application.

In accordance with its normal practice regarding concurrent proceedings under a collective agreement, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed grievances on behalf of the applicant.

The respondents requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of the outstanding grievances before deciding on the deferral request.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related criminal proceeding against one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that the criminal charges related to an incident forming a substantial part of the application.