Lucy Siraco

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order allowing it to access and use the applicant's personal health information from his Occupational Health and Claims Management file.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the documents were relevant to the issues raised and necessary for the respondent to make a full answer and defence, subject to confidentiality safeguards.

The respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to strike the applicant's Reply in its entirety.

The respondent argued the Reply was repetitive, contained improper arguments, and improperly raised a claim of defamation based on the respondent's pleadings.

The Tribunal found that the Reply properly raised one new issue regarding the thoroughness of the respondent's investigation, and allowed those portions to stand.

However, the Tribunal struck the defamation claim in its entirety, finding it was barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege which protects communications made during quasi-judicial proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding overtime opportunities.

After a lengthy procedural history involving the applicant's failure to provide particulars and disregard for Tribunal orders, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled merits hearing, sending a fax the morning of the hearing claiming bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and as an abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to request time off work indicated he never intended to attend.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the denial of overtime, the respondent requested production of documents, particulars, and the striking of portions of the applicant's witness statement.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant's outside income records but ordered the applicant to provide particulars regarding alleged meetings about overtime.

The Tribunal also struck portions of the witness statement relating to events outside the temporal scope of the application and ordered the applicant to comply with documentary disclosure rules.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a digital recording of an upcoming hearing and commenting on redactions made by the respondent to disclosed documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for a recording, noting its standard practice is not to record hearings and the applicant provided no reason to deviate.

The Tribunal also found that the redacted names and badge numbers of other operators were not relevant to the proceeding at this stage, as the applicant had not yet provided particulars regarding his own overtime requests.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent for denying him overtime opportunities.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for production of documents.

The Tribunal found the applicant's request for all overtime records and a list of operators earning over $100,000 to be overbroad and not arguably relevant.

The respondent was ordered to produce limited daily slips for weekends during the relevant period.

The applicant was ordered to produce copies of the volunteer overtime slips he submitted during the relevant period.

During a judicial review proceeding, the court struck the applicant's affidavit from the record.

The court found that the affidavit contained argument and attempted to supplement the record before the Tribunal.

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the affidavit fell within the exceptional circumstances set out in Keeprite that permit a party to file affidavit evidence to supplement the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal had concluded that earlier incidents were out of time and not part of a series of incidents, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent employer.

The respondent requested the removal of two personal respondents and a summary hearing to strike allegations of reprisal and discrimination by association.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that the disputed facts regarding discrimination by association required a full hearing on the merits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application or strike portions of it, arguing it was based on confidential information improperly obtained by the applicant from a co-worker in breach of an arbitrator's order and the implied undertaking rule.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant knew of the confidentiality breaches to constitute an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also held that the documents were not protected by absolute privilege or the equitable doctrine of confidentiality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability by her employer.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the allegations relating to events prior to May 2011 as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the earlier events did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Code due to significant temporal gaps.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2), as pursuing other avenues of redress does not justify a delay in filing a human rights application.

The allegations prior to May 2011 were dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, while the timely allegation regarding the termination of employment was permitted to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, including a labour arbitrator.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the application against the arbitrator was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal held that labour arbitrators are protected by judicial immunity for decisions made in the exercise of their adjudicative functions.

The application was dismissed as against the arbitrator.

The applicant, who identified as a brown man from India, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin after the respondent failed to hire him as a transit operator following a conditional offer of employment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's decision not to advance him to the training program to a prohibited Code ground.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to delay.

He argued that he did not receive the respondent's response and that his delay was caused by post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the respondent's request to dismiss and that the medical evidence provided did not establish that his condition prevented him from filing the application within the one-year statutory time limit.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to call into a scheduled teleconference hearing.

The applicant, a paralegal, claimed he misread the Notice of Hearing and expected to be called.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant should have read the Notice carefully, his emails sent the night before and shortly after the hearing demonstrated an intention to pursue the application.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, finding that the prejudice to the respondents was minimal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested to dismiss allegations pre-dating December 11, 2011 for delay, and requested a summary hearing for the remaining surveillance allegation.

The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations, finding no good faith explanation for the delay, as waiting for an internal investigation to conclude does not justify delay.

The request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant's request to amend was dismissed without prejudice, and the union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant, a black man originally from Trinidad and Tobago, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment by the respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were largely based on speculation, lacked probative value, and failed to show a link between the respondent's conduct and the alleged Code grounds.

The application was dismissed on a preliminary basis.

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

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

Despite receiving proper notice and communicating with the Tribunal shortly before the hearing, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and a personal respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent and directed the parties to schedule mediation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

The original decision found that some allegations were out of time and the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already decided and had not established any of the grounds required under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.