Jessica Young

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

She simultaneously filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a related entity.

The respondents sought early dismissal, arguing the matter fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction as a broadcaster.

Given the uncertainty regarding the corporate relationships and whether the applicant was employed by a federal or provincial undertaking, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal proceedings.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding.

The applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request re-activation following the WSIB decision, filing his request approximately five months late.

Although the applicant cited his mother's terminal illness and subsequent estate issues as reasons for the delay, he admitted he had not thought about the application until contacted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found it was not appropriate to extend the deadline and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an expedited hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age.

The request was based on the impending closure of the respondent's only Canadian plant, after which the respondent would have no operations or assets in Canada, potentially rendering any Tribunal order unenforceable.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite the hearing, finding the circumstances urgent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age against his employer and union.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to pursue a grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations against the employer regarding a 2007 injury and 2008 layoff as previously decided and untimely, respectively.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's return to work in April 2013 to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the request to dismiss, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and laid him off because of his disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing it was barred by a prior grievance settlement, or alternatively to defer it pending an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding the grievance settlement did not address Code-related issues.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision to avoid concurrent proceedings arising from the same factual history.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability against her employer and several individuals.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the allegations had already been dealt with in a grievance arbitration and a professional discipline complaint to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the College of Nurses appropriately dealt with the allegations regarding discriminatory comments, and the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the reprisal allegations regarding work assignments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety to prevent relitigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was previously deferred pending the outcome of a grievance arbitration.

The respondents filed a request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered a half-day teleconference hearing to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request.