Amanda Lawrence

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a request for a medical leave of absence following her maternity leave.

The respondents requested the removal of three individual management staff as respondents.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add new allegations regarding a subsequent return to work process.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was fully liable and capable of remedying any infringement.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were different in nature and would cause significant delay to the scheduled hearing.

In an application alleging age discrimination in the respondent school board's failure to hire the applicant for acting and permanent Department Head positions, the applicant sought production of various documents.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered the respondent to disclose the successful candidate's age and application materials, subject to privacy redactions.

The Tribunal denied requests for information regarding unsuccessful candidates and historical hiring data, finding them not arguably relevant.

Requests for documents relating to the International Baccalaureate program and the applicant's personnel files were deferred to the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he lacked the cognitive capacity to understand the release when he signed it.

The Tribunal found no medical or other evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity, noting he understood he had to sign to receive severance.

The Tribunal held the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all emails from January 2011 to her termination in October 2014.

The respondent opposed the request as overbroad.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overbroad and not sufficiently particularized, as it would encompass many emails irrelevant to the issues of disability, accommodation, and performance.

The applicant was permitted to file a more particularized request.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being rejected for an acting Department Head position.

He sought to amend his application to include a subsequent rejection for the permanent position.

The respondent consented to the amendment on the condition that a duplicate application be withdrawn and the hearing adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association intervenor status to make arguments and cross-examine witnesses, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's request despite the applicant's opposition.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability against her employer school board and the doctor who conducted an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no evidence linking the doctor's assessment or the school board's actions, including a request for an ergonomic assessment and a letter regarding a salary overpayment, to her disability or to an assertion of her Code rights.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging workplace reprisal, arguing that an internal investigation was ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not an independent decision-making process that could lead to inconsistent findings, and noting that the investigation had been proceeding slowly without union involvement.

The application was directed to proceed to mediation.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed three grievances on her behalf regarding the same issues, with arbitration already underway.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, finding a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the proceedings and noting that labour arbitrators have the power and duty to enforce the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance arising from the same factual circumstances and seeking human rights damages.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding the duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.