Casey Dockendorff

The respondent requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing on the basis that its primary witness regarding the issue of delay was medically unavailable.

The applicant opposed the request, citing prejudice due to health and age.

The Tribunal refused the adjournment, noting that the witness's testimony might not be necessary to determine timeliness and that the hearing would also address whether the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add further details regarding her workplace injury, allegations of harassment, and a claim for punitive damages.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing that some allegations were out of time and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the early stage of proceedings and lack of prejudice, but directed the applicant to clarify the timeliness of the 2013 allegations and remove the claim for punitive damages, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondent, a Human Resources manager, from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions, which were carried out in the course of her employment.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the Tribunal's established principles, the adjudicator found no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party and granted the request to remove her.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on race, disability, age, and reprisal during a co-op placement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code beyond his own speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent trucking company.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the grounds that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the respondent's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.