Joseph Cohen-Lyons

The plaintiff, a self-represented former worker for the defendants, filed a 64-page Statement of Claim alleging constructive dismissal, harassment, and misclassification.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for failing to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim lacked paragraph numbers, failed to specify damages amounts for each head of relief, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and contained unnecessary repetition and superfluous schedules.

The court struck the claim in its entirety with leave to amend within 30 days and awarded the defendants $25,000 in costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate in her employment.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim sought damages for emotional distress and contained allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate, which amounted to seeking remedies for Code infringements.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11)(a).

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding regarding his termination and severance pay.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct disentitling him to severance, and did not address or make findings inconsistent with the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation, producing a Canada Industrial Relations Board certification order and a letter from Labour Canada.

The applicant consented to the dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the regulation of interprovincial transportation is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's concurrent Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

Both proceedings arose from the termination of the applicant's employment and sought monetary damages.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the significant overlap in issues and the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment, reprisal, and discrimination on the basis of disability following the termination of her employment.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the harassment and reprisal claims, finding that the alleged harassment was not based on any Code-protected grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the applicant's sick leave and termination to proceed.