Michelle Henry

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.

A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing after her adjournment request was denied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a Statement of Claim for wrongful dismissal that was improperly served by facsimile transmission in 2013, or alternatively to extend the time for service.

The plaintiff's former solicitors had failed to properly serve the claim and took no steps to advance the litigation for several years.

The court found that the defendant had likely received the improperly served claim and was aware of the impending litigation.

Concluding that the defendant would not suffer prejudice caused by the delay and that solicitor negligence is not a reason to refuse an extension, the court validated the service by facsimile transmission.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The union, OECTA, was granted intervenor status and sought to participate in the merits phase of the hearing to protect its reputation against allegations of collusion, despite taking no position on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to call evidence and cross-examine during the merits phase, finding it would likely cause delay and disruption and that the union's participation would not assist in determining the merits.

The union's participation was limited to the remedy phase.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had recently retained new counsel following the wind-down of another law firm.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing was still five weeks away.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel is not generally considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, and that new counsel had sufficient time to prepare for the straightforward hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, age, and reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to funding cuts.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a connection to the Code, and therefore declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also removed one personal respondent and declined to add another, noting the corporate respondent accepted full liability for their actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondents delayed providing his HIV test results to his family physician and disclosed his HIV status to his employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence linking the respondents' actions to his alleged disability.

Furthermore, the applicant's test results were negative and he had never been diagnosed with HIV.

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

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

Given the significant overlap between the proceedings, the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, and the lack of objection from the applicant, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability.

The matter was deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance arbitration, which ultimately awarded the applicant damages for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect due to the employer's failure to accommodate.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been appropriately dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the arbitrator had considered the totality of the events and their impact on the applicant.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's remaining allegations regarding earlier events were untimely and not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages allegation under section 45.1 of the Code, finding it had been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, as the alleged reprisal stemmed from enforcing rights under the Employment Standards Act rather than the Code.

The remaining allegations of discrimination were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the respondents.

She subsequently requested an order to add Loblaws Inc. as a respondent, arguing that Loblaws was responsible for the selection process for a training program from which she was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to allege facts that, if proven, could support a finding that Loblaws violated her rights under the Code, as there was no allegation that Loblaws' refusal to select her was based on her sex.