Joel Thomas

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on citizenship, marital status, and age, claiming that workplace break scheduling favoured a 'Facebook and Smoker elite' group.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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

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

Subsequently, the applicant commenced a civil action against the respondent that included allegations of discrimination and harassment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Code because the civil claim sought remedies for Code infringements and had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction to allow the applicant to amend the civil claim to proceed with the application.

The applicant, a retail employee, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability regarding his employer's scheduling practices and his subsequent termination.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the scheduling allegations, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to trigger the duty to accommodate his restricted availability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the termination allegations to proceed to a merits hearing, as there were significant factual disputes regarding whether the applicant's conduct was disability-related and whether the termination constituted a reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several grocery store chains discriminated against him on the basis of creed by collecting a 'Kosher Tax' on food items.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the existence of such a tax or demonstrate how he was treated differently from other customers based on his creed.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a 60-year-old man, alleged age discrimination after he was not hired for a store associate position at the respondent's new retail store.

The applicant argued that the respondent's hiring process, which relied on group interviews and role-playing rather than reviewing resumes and work experience, was discriminatory and that he was passed over in favour of younger, less experienced candidates.

The Tribunal found that the recruitment process was not discriminatory and that the applicant was not hired because he performed poorly during the speed meeting and role-play exercises compared to other candidates.

The application was dismissed.