Mark Ellis

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

The application was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance proceeding.

Following an arbitration award that dismissed the failure to accommodate and harassment allegations, the Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also sought to amend her application to include new allegations arising after the arbitration award.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it untimely and prejudicial to the respondent.

Applying the principles from Figliola and Penner, the Tribunal concluded that the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of creed, family status, and reprisal against a children's aid society and one of its workers.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints primarily related to her disagreement with court decisions denying her access to her children, and she failed to point to any evidence beyond her own speculation that the respondents' actions were linked to the prohibited grounds.

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

The plaintiffs, two sisters, sued their third sister and her family members over the transfer of a family farm property.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property was transferred for less than its true value and that the defendant sister breached her fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff Liliana brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after discovering a new $2,000,000 mortgage on the property and a pending agreement of purchase and sale for $6.9 million.

The court granted the CPL but ordered that it could be vacated upon payment of $1,500,000 into court if the pending sale closes, balancing the plaintiffs' claims with the defendants' right to complete the transaction.

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs (two sisters) sued the defendant (a third sister) and others regarding the transfer of a family farm.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs had no legal interest in the property as mere beneficiaries under their living mother's will.

The court noted the plaintiffs each received $250,000 from the defendant sister for their interests in the farm, suggesting they did have an interest or were improperly denied one.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment following his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same termination.

The respondents consented to the deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing the arbitration might not fully address damages.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the key issue in both proceedings was the termination of employment, and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, or facilities.

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

The applicant failed to attend the telephone conference hearing despite receiving notice.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The appellant union applied to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of a children's aid society providing services to Aboriginal families in Toronto.

The agency challenged the application, arguing its labour relations fell under exclusive provincial authority.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the essential function of the agency is to deliver child welfare services, which is a provincial function.

The presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced by the Aboriginal aspects of the agency's operations.

The applicants, foster parents, filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination by a child protection agency and several of its employees based on one applicant's disability.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing the applications were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, out of time, and that the personal respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction due to a sufficient nexus between the alleged actions and the applicants' employment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for delay, finding the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than three years prior to filing, and the applicants failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after transferring her complaint from the Commission.

She also commenced a civil action claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination based on the same factual circumstances, but deliberately omitted the reprisal claim from the civil action.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for an alleged infringement of the Code arising out of the same factual context.

The application was dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.