Allyson Fischer

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination due to the respondent's mandatory retirement policy.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, arguing the one-year time limit began when the applicant signed the partnership agreement containing the policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the triggering incident was the actual application of the policy (the forced retirement), making the application timely.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that its core business is federally regulated and therefore all its employees fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that because the respondent engages in extra-provincial transportation, its operations are a federal undertaking under section 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of an application alleging age discrimination due to a mandatory retirement policy.

The respondent argued that deferral was appropriate because the parties were involved in a parallel civil action regarding alleged post-retirement solicitation and competition, which would also require determining whether the applicant was an employee or a partner.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the core issue in the human rights application (the nature of the employment relationship) was only a minor issue in the civil litigation, and the underlying events giving rise to the two proceedings were not the same.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss on the basis that the respondents appeared to be federally regulated.

The respondents submitted that their transportation and warehousing operations are fully integrated and extend beyond provincial borders, bringing them under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant made no submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal found that the organizational respondents are federally regulated companies and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently engaged in a pattern of disrespectful and abusive communication, including using fictitious insulting names for respondents, comparing them to Nazis, and using profanity.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to cease this conduct and file an amended application.

The applicant refused to comply, continued the abusive communications, and attacked the Tribunal's integrity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent Shoppers Drug Mart requested orders prohibiting the self-represented applicant from communicating with its employees, attending its premises, and requiring him to conduct himself courteously.

The applicant had sent harassing emails, used fictitious and insulting names for individual respondents, and copied Tribunal members directly.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant general injunctive relief regarding the applicant's attendance at premises or general communications.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file a new application without insulting names, direct all communications through the Registrar and respondent's counsel, and maintain courteous conduct, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abuse of process.