Matthew Demeo

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex, including sexual harassment.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's factual allegations as true, there was no evidence connecting the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground under the Code.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and assault by an employee of the organizational respondents.

She subsequently brought a request to add the alleged perpetrator as a personal respondent.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, citing delay and denying vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's conduct was central to the allegations and that adding him was necessary to ensure the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award a remedy, particularly since the organizational respondents did not accept vicarious liability.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by a shopping mall security guard who told him to stop taking pictures, threatened him with arrest, and issued a 24-hour trespass notice.

The applicant claimed he was targeted because of his Ukrainian accent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the security guard's actions or the mall management's response to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, and the reprisal claim lacked evidence of an intention to retaliate for claiming Code rights.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that an upcoming summary hearing be conducted in writing rather than orally, citing her self-represented status and inability to meaningfully participate in an oral hearing.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure prohibit the final disposition of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Because a summary hearing could result in the dismissal of the application, and the respondents did not waive their right to oral submissions, the hearing could not proceed solely in writing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of another proceeding, to amend her application, and for early production of documents.

The respondents consented to the reactivation and amendment but opposed the production request.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and amendment but denied the request for early production as premature, noting that Rule 16 is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, which had not yet occurred.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking detailed witness statements and the production of documents referenced in the applicant's witness list.

The respondent also opposed the applicant's request to have her treating physicians testify by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements and produce the referenced documents.

The Tribunal permitted one physician to testify by telephone but required the other to testify in person due to potential credibility issues.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including her complete personnel file, supervisory files, and medical files.

The respondent objected to producing the complete files, arguing they were not relevant or did not exist.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the respondent to produce documents from the personnel and supervisory files for the specific timeframe of the alleged discrimination, as well as relevant internal job applications and Manulife files.

The request was otherwise denied.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application and sought further particulars regarding the applicant's allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as their actions were taken as employees managing the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding one specific allegation, but otherwise declined to order further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his ancestry when he was disciplined and terminated.

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 beyond his own belief to connect the disciplinary actions and termination to his ancestry.

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

The respondents requested the production of the applicant's clinical notes from her attending psychologist.

The applicant did not object but had difficulties obtaining the records as the psychologist was on pregnancy leave and out of the country.

The Tribunal ordered the psychologist and her clinic to produce the 2014 clinical notes to the applicant's counsel, who would then provide a redacted copy to the respondents' counsel.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application alleging sex and gender identity discrimination.

The proposed amendments included additional allegations against employees, details regarding her transfer, and allegations of being forced to perform physically demanding tasks while pregnant.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments would unduly expand the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegations were related to the original grounds and that the respondent would not be prejudiced as it could file an amended response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was laid off after taking a medical leave.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

On consent, a personally named respondent was removed from the application.

The applicant's union was granted intervenor status.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied because there was a central factual dispute regarding the timing of the decision to lay off the applicant.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process was deferred until after the parties attempt mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and reprisal by his former employer.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events from 2007 to 2009 and a comment in March 2011 were untimely and not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving that the remaining alleged mistreatment, including warnings, failure to promote, suspension, and termination, was linked to his race or constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.