Lauri Reesor

The applicant filed a Request to re-activate the Application under Rule 14.3 following the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule the Application for a hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the union took no position but acknowledged the overlap in issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, who has bipolar affective disorder, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated for performance issues.

She signed a release upon termination but her psychiatrist subsequently requested accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the applicant's disability prior to termination, as she had returned from medical leaves with no restrictions and made no request for accommodation.

The Tribunal further held that the release signed by the applicant barred any post-termination duty to accommodate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent university.

The applicant requested to write an exam on an alternative date for convenience related to her work schedule, without prior instructor approval.

The respondent denied the request, citing its examination policy requiring students to write at the same time to maintain academic integrity, but offered to keep its test centre open late on the scheduled exam day to accommodate her.

The applicant withdrew from the course and alleged a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no Code-related reason for needing to write on the alternative date, and the respondent's refusal and subsequent efforts to arrange a time on the scheduled day did not constitute discrimination.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights application as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant, who has bipolar affective disorder, argued the release was signed under duress and without legal capacity.

The Tribunal found no duress and concluded the applicant had the legal capacity to sign the release.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss because the employer ignored a letter from the applicant's psychiatrist requesting accommodation sent shortly after the termination, and because there were unresolved questions regarding the employer's knowledge of the disability and whether the release violated the Employment Standards Act by excluding disability benefits during the statutory notice period.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights complaint, arguing the parties had reached a binding settlement.

The complainant had verbally agreed to sign minutes of settlement but later refused.

The Tribunal found that the minutes of settlement contained an express condition precedent requiring ratification and approval by the respondent Board.

Because the complainant revoked her agreement before the Board ratified the settlement, no binding contract was formed.

The respondent's request was dismissed and the hearing of the complaint was ordered to proceed.