Marianne Craig

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add three co-workers as personal respondents and to amend the remedy sought in her age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the three individuals were already effectively named as respondents in the original application materials, despite being omitted from the specific box on the form.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant failed to file a request to proceed within the required 60-day period under Rule 14.4.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

As the applicant did not respond or request to proceed, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The union, OPSEU, sought intervenor status and supported the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status but denied the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal held that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' subject to reconsideration under its Rules, as it did not dispose of a central issue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision on its own motion, finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of her gender discrimination complaint had already been dealt with in a prior grievance mediation-arbitration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's brief reasons in the grievance process did not specify whether the discrimination allegations were considered.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Penner, the Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to use the results of the prior proceeding to preclude the human rights claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress and did not understand its significance.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant had the opportunity to read the release and subsequently cashed the settlement cheques.

The Tribunal held that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.