Peter Hrastovec

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application after the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the personal respondent.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the parties to file a copy of the court's decision in the criminal proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its application of the discoverability doctrine.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the original decision, which does not meet the strict criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he only discovered the discriminatory treatment months after his retirement was finalized.

The Tribunal found that the discovery of new evidence did not establish good faith for the delay, and that the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and race, claiming she was treated unfairly and terminated during her probationary period for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's perceptions of discrimination were based on ambiguous events and that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, including performance issues and an incident where she was unable to work due to crying.

The application was dismissed.