Lisa Carty

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided proper notice to both parties.

The applicant failed to dial in or communicate with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

After waiting half an hour, the Tribunal terminated the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant alleged that a new production manager unfairly raised performance issues with him, which he assumed was due to his age and his identity as the only Native American in the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were based on mere speculation and belief, with no evidence linking the manager's actions to any Code grounds.

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

The applicant, a probationary support worker at a group home, alleged her employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting that a resident had been yelled at by a manager.

She also alleged the respondent reprised against her by falsely reporting income to Service Canada, jeopardizing her Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment for performance-related reasons was made before the respondent received her report.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it did not falsely report income to Service Canada.

A teleconference case management hearing was held regarding two human rights applications.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the first application to deal with merits separately from remedy.

The Tribunal also noted it remained seized of the second application, encouraged mediation, removed CUPE Ontario Regional as a respondent on consent, and set a schedule for written submissions regarding the removal of CUPE National as a respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences after his employment was terminated because a criminal background check revealed pending criminal charges.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the definition of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to convictions, not pending charges.

The Tribunal also found that conducting a background check after employment commences does not, on its own, breach the Code.