Melissa Roth

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and disability, nearly two years after her employment was terminated.

She had previously filed an application regarding the same termination, which was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the current application should be dismissed for delay or as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she did not provide medical evidence that her eye surgery prevented her from filing in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the application to be an abuse of process because it re-raised issues that had already been addressed and dismissed in the first application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of timeliness.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified by his fear of reprisal and stress related to family illness.

The Tribunal found that fear of reprisal does not constitute good faith for delay, and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence that his stress or family circumstances prevented him from pursuing his rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination based on disability brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application.

She sought to include a new allegation regarding a Last Chance Agreement and evidence of recent events.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that allowing amendments after the hearing had already commenced and the applicant had completed her evidence would be prejudicial to the respondents.

The Tribunal also noted it had previously ruled the recent events were outside the relevant time period.

The applicant in a human rights complaint filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application and compel the production of documents.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments to change the requested remedies, including a request that any monetary award be donated to charity, and to add allegations of ongoing issues that arose after the application was filed.

The Tribunal denied amendments relating to workplace unfairness not linked to a Code ground and those that were in the nature of submissions.

The request for document production was dismissed as the requested documents either did not exist, were already produced, or lacked arguable relevance.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed multiple Requests for Orders during Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend her application, exclude documents, and obtain production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to exclude documents and anonymize her name.

The Tribunal also denied the request to amend the application to include allegations post-dating her termination, finding they did not fall within the employment ground and would delay the hearing.

However, the Tribunal permitted amendments relating to allegations that occurred during her employment.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order to amend the remedies sought, including directing monetary compensation to a charity and adding dispute resolution processes.

The respondents requested the removal of four named personal respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the remedy amendment request to the hearing adjudicator, finding it unnecessary to decide at the preliminary stage.

Two personal respondents were removed on consent, while the remaining two were retained as respondents, subject to reconsideration at the hearing.