Eric Gresham

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when his employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had previously found that the applicant was capable of returning to work without modifications and that his ongoing loss of earnings was due to his refusal to accept work, not his injury.

The Tribunal agreed that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a temporary worker, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability by terminating his placement after he suffered a workplace injury.

The applicant claimed his hours were cut and he was assigned more difficult work upon returning.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's placement was terminated because he walked off the job without permission after being assigned packing duties he disliked.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove his workplace injury was a factor in the respondents' decision to end his placement, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning him of the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no new facts, evidence, or exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness had to travel overseas on short notice due to a family emergency.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, ordering that the hearing proceed as scheduled for the applicant's evidence and the respondents' other witnesses, with the hearing to be adjourned thereafter to a later date when the unavailable witness could testify.

The applicant, a 67-year-old man, applied for a seasonal grounds maintenance position with the respondent golf club.

He was interviewed but not hired.

The applicant alleged age discrimination, primarily because the respondent did not contact him within one day of the interview, which he believed was promised.

The Tribunal found that the applicant misunderstood the timeline and that there was no evidence connecting the failure to hire him, or the timeline of the communication, to his age.

The application was dismissed.