Dianne Jozefacki

The applicant, a school custodian, alleged discrimination based on sex, creed, and race regarding workplace conflict, scheduling, religious leave, and school inspections.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal confirmed the union's intervenor status over the applicant's objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the religious leave allegation as having no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the school inspection allegations under section 45.1 of the Code because they had been dealt with in a prior grievance.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to include events outside the one-year limitation period.

The allegations regarding workplace conflict and scheduling were permitted to proceed.

The union filed a grievance regarding the employer's failure to comply with Minutes of Settlement signed in October 2014.

The employer conceded that it breached the settlement by failing to provide the agreed-upon training in human rights, equity, diversity, workplace violence, harassment, and bullying within the twelve-month timeline.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the employer's commitment to training and remained seized of any interpretation issues.

The applicant, who requires a power wheelchair, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing it was barred by a prior settlement and release, and alternatively had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the release did not bar the application because the allegations concerned a conversation that occurred after the release was signed.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the allegations of demeaning treatment based on disability could constitute a Code infringement if proven.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant, a student teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after her placement with the respondent school board was terminated abruptly.

The termination followed a confrontation with her supervising teacher regarding a lesson plan and timing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the respondents was one of services, not employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reliable evidence that the applicant's ethnic origin was a factor in her treatment or the termination of her placement, and attributing the issues to the applicant's lateness, failure to communicate absences, and performance concerns.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and recordings from the respondent college.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and ordered the respondent to produce an audio recording of specific voicemail messages, but denied the majority of the production requests on the basis of relevance or because the documents did not exist.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the ground of colour from her application, but deferred her requests to add a ground of sexual harassment and to have her brother assist in her representation to the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent school board did not hire her for a casual clerical position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish the first two elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, and that evidence regarding the ages of the successful candidates was within the respondent's control.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not clear the application had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and ethnic origin after he was denied a building operator position.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving his claims, as he relied solely on his own subjective beliefs and speculation without any objective evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to accommodation and services on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and receipt of social assistance, as well as reprisal, following a billing dispute at the respondent hotel.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant made bald assertions of discrimination but failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between the respondent's actions and a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

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