Lorraine Por

The applicant, a gas station attendant, alleged she was terminated because of her sex (pregnancy) and family status.

The respondent failed to comply with disclosure rules and was barred from calling witnesses or presenting documentary evidence.

Despite this, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish discrimination.

The evidence showed her termination resulted from performance issues and a dispute over whether she had to pay for a customer's gas 'drive-off', rather than her recently discovered pregnancy, which the terminating manager was not proven to know about.

The respondent school board requested the removal of the applicant's mother as his Litigation Guardian, arguing the applicant had capacity to bring the application himself and alleging a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal found insufficient basis to conclude the applicant lacked capacity to consent to an application being brought on his behalf under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application converted from one with a Litigation Guardian to a section 34(5) application, with the mother acting as the applicant and the son as the claimant, subject to any objections.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal disregard the respondent's late Response and reactivate his deferred application following the conclusion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The Tribunal waived the time limit for the late Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant and noting the applicant contributed to the delay by improperly delivering an unfinalized copy of the application to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application, as the applicant complied with the Rules and the respondent did not oppose.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the school board breached a previous settlement regarding her accommodation.

Subsequently, a new Application was filed alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the two Applications.

Finding common issues of fact and law, and no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal ordered the Applications consolidated and cancelled the scheduled hearing for the first Application to allow for a single hearing on the merits.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim that she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employer claimed she was terminated for poor attendance and inability to work full-time hours.

The Board found that the employer's reasons were not credible, as the applicant was an excellent worker and the employer had previously accommodated her schedule.

The Board concluded that the termination was tainted by consideration of her pregnancy, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant was awarded $13,639.00 in compensation, including direct wage loss, loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, and pain and suffering.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay severance to an employee who was forced to retire at age 65.

The employer argued that mandatory retirement at age 65 was an implied term of the employment contract and did not constitute a 'termination' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found that the employee did not voluntarily resign and was unilaterally terminated by the employer.

Because the employee was retired without an unreduced pension benefit, the Board held that the retirement constituted a termination under section 58 of the Act, entitling the employee to severance pay.

The application for review was dismissed.