Susan Crawford

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by removing two paragraphs and revising others.

The respondents consented on the condition that the applicant file an amended application showing all changes in a single document.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the amendments narrowed the scope of the allegations.

The parties jointly requested that the applicant's name be anonymized in the Tribunal process, following a previous interim decision that had denied the request.

In light of newly developed circumstances involving highly sensitive information, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant the anonymization order, balancing the public interest in open justice against the significant consequences of identifying the applicant.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking anonymity in the Tribunal process, arguing that the nature of his disability was stigmatizing and could negatively impact future employment.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the facts did not present exceptional circumstances of sensitivity or privacy that would justify departing from the open hearing principle.

The Tribunal noted that most disability cases involve some disclosure of personal information and that measures could be taken in writing decisions to reveal only necessary private information.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for the production of the applicant's medical records and income tax returns.

The applicant objected, arguing the medical request was a fishing expedition and the tax returns were irrelevant.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents, finding that the medical records were arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and the tax returns were relevant to mitigation of damages and whether the applicant was working while absent from employment.

The respondents requested the consolidation of two human rights applications filed by co-workers alleging discrimination based on creed for being denied time off to pray.

The staffing agencies that placed the applicants with the corporate respondent also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding the applications raised identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal also granted the intervention request, finding the staffing agencies had a significant interest and could provide assistance regarding the employment context.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of short-term disability benefits.

The respondent employer, Expertech, is a federally regulated telecommunications company.

The Tribunal found that Expertech is a federal undertaking and the subject matter of the application relates to its employee relations, placing it outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also found that the third-party benefits manager, OSI, was providing advice related to federal employment and was therefore also outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the WSIB and his employer, Expertech.

The WSIB and Expertech requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the WSIB did not raise an arguable claim of discrimination, as there was no evidence of unequal treatment based on disability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim against Expertech, finding it was an abuse of process and barred under section 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling the matters and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had already determined the claim was barred by that release.