James D. Heeney

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceeding seeking production of the applicant's cell phone records, business records, and mitigation documents.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of mitigation and the applicant's allegation that she was framed for workplace misconduct.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested documents, subject to a temporal limitation on the cell phone records.

The applicant, a temporary legal assistant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, marital status, and reprisal against a law firm and a staffing agency after she was not considered for a subsequent job opening.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were merely speculative and accusatory, and there was no reasonable prospect that she could prove a link between the respondents' actions and any Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tim Hortons franchisee and its franchisor, The TDL Group Corporation.

The Tribunal requested written submissions on whether the franchisor should remain a named respondent.

The applicant argued the franchisor had sufficient control over the franchisee's operations to be deemed an employer, and that removing it at a preliminary stage would be premature.

The franchisor withdrew its request for early dismissal.

The Tribunal directed that the franchisor remain a named respondent, noting that the question of its liability should be determined following evidence and argument at the hearing.