David Bolger

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university for failing to nominate him for a Canada Research Chair.

Prior to the application, the applicant filed a consolidated grievance addressing the same allegations.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Finding that the grievance dealt with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim before the Ontario Labour Relations Board raising similar facts and seeking similar remedies.

Finding considerable overlap and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceedings.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights Application pending the outcome of a grievance filed on behalf of the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the Application and the grievance related to distinct time periods and events.

The Application pertained to the period up to the end of the applicant's employment, while the grievance related to events surrounding a subsequent job application.

As such, proceeding with the Application would not give rise to inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a medical doctor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, sex, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding hiring processes in 2009 and 2010 were out of time and removed them from the application.

However, the remaining allegations were found to constitute a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed the applicant to file an amended application.

The applicant, a part-time university professor, alleged that his teaching contracts were terminated based on his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondent university maintained that the termination was due to numerous student complaints regarding the applicant's teaching and his failure to meet teaching standards.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the termination to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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