Erin Porter

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought to examine for discovery the co-worker whose sexual harassment complaint led to his termination.

The defendant hospital moved under Rule 31.03(2) to substitute a human resources manager as its discovery representative, or alternatively, for the examination to proceed by written questions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the co-worker had direct knowledge of the critical issue of whether the harassment occurred, and the defendant failed to show that examining the co-worker would be oppressive or that the plaintiff's choice should be displaced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on multiple grounds, including race, disability, and age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegation regarding a 2009 layoff was out of time and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between the respondent's alleged conduct and any of the grounds cited in the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Personal Support Worker, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after her employment was terminated following an incident where a resident suffered a fractured femur during a transfer.

The applicant claimed she was falsely blamed for the incident in reprisal for a previous human rights application.

She also alleged failure to accommodate her knee disability when assigned to a floor requiring more walking.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success for the reprisal claim as the termination was based on independent investigation findings.

The Tribunal also found the floor assignment was consistent with a prior accommodation settlement and no updated medical restrictions were provided.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

After waiting thirty minutes, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that awarded her $5,000 for discrimination.

The applicant argued the award was unreasonable because it did not compensate her for lost wages akin to a wrongful dismissal claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the HRTO's award was based on a procedural failing in the duty to accommodate and was distinct from common law wrongful dismissal damages.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the court found the HRTO's decision fell within the range of possible, acceptable, and defensible outcomes.

The applicant, a Personal Support Worker, developed a back problem and was restricted from heavy lifting.

The respondent nursing home determined she could not perform the essential duties of her position or other available positions due to her lifting restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent met its procedural duty to accommodate by exploring options, and its substantive duty because accommodating the applicant would require adding extra staff or fundamentally changing the job, which constitutes undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Registered Practical Nurse, alleged her employment was terminated because of her colour.

The respondent employer maintained she was terminated for breach of trust after an investigation revealed a complaint email was sent from her daughter's work computer.

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 her termination to her colour, relying only on her own belief and speculation.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondent employer, alleging discrimination based on disability and subsequent reprisal for filing the first application.

The first application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The respondent requested that the second application also be deferred and that the two applications be consolidated.

The Tribunal found that the reprisal allegations were inextricably linked to the discrimination allegations and the WSIAT proceeding, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the second application deferred pending the WSIAT proceeding and consolidated the two applications.

The applicant and her representative failed to attend a scheduled conference call to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant's representative contacted the Tribunal shortly after the call, explaining that technical difficulties with a new phone system prevented his attendance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not intend to abandon the application and that it would be unfair to dismiss it based on the representative's inadvertence.

The respondent's request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB proceedings.

The applicant requested to reactivate the application following a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision, but the respondent opposed the request because it had appealed that decision to the WSIAT.

The applicant also requested to amend her application to include her subsequent termination of employment.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate due to the ongoing WSIAT appeal, but granted the request to amend the application on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after suffering a workplace back injury.

She also had an ongoing WSIB claim regarding her return to work and accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the WSIB claim and the human rights application were triggered by the same facts and there was a clear overlap between the issues, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The application was deferred pending a grievance arbitration, which resulted in Minutes of Settlement and a full and final release signed by the applicant.

The applicant later sought to reactivate the tribunal application, arguing she did not understand the release, was under duress, and suffered from depression.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish incapacity or legal duress, and held that allowing the application to proceed in light of the release would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment.

Following the termination of her employment, the applicant filed grievances under her collective agreement.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate following a work injury.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well over a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was unaware of her human rights options and was waiting for the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law and waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude do not constitute a reasonable explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of failure to accommodate prior to the application date, finding they were barred by previous binding settlements.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations for lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding a specific allegation of failure to accommodate that occurred in October 2010, after the application was filed.