Marvin Alan Gorodensky

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding the termination of his employment.

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

Finding that the factual and legal issues in both proceedings overlapped, particularly with respect to remedy, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, claiming she was terminated after becoming disabled.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a civil proceeding regarding her termination.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the civil claim involved distinct legal issues, while the respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal found significant factual overlap between the two proceedings, particularly regarding the reasons for termination, and ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant, a pharmacist, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (needle phobia) after his employment was terminated following the expansion of pharmacists' scope of practice to include administering injections.

The applicant also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, requested submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the civil action.

Finding a substantial overlap of facts and issues, and noting that the civil action was more advanced with a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal deferred the application.

The applicant alleged age discrimination in employment against the Department of National Defence, claiming he was pressured into retirement by his employer, the Commissionaires Great Lakes, at the respondent's instance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on two grounds: first, the respondent is a federal undertaking over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction; second, the applicant was never employed by the respondent and therefore cannot claim discrimination in employment against it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Upon reviewing the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal found that the civil action did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies under the Code.

Therefore, the Application was not barred by section 34(11) of the Code, and the Tribunal directed that the Application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The applicant had also filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the Small Claims Court action.

Finding significant overlap in the factual events and seeking to avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the court action.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, claiming she was demoted and terminated after taking two maternity leaves.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that both proceedings pertained to the applicant's termination and would require similar factual findings.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

A long‑term employee brought a wrongful dismissal action after being laid off and not recalled within the time permitted under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that termination deemed under the Act occurs on the first day of layoff and that the common law notice period also runs from that date.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court found a 12‑month reasonable notice period.

However, the employee failed to mitigate his damages by declining a reasonable offer to return to work at a lower wage where no hostile work environment was established.

Damages were therefore limited to the period prior to the rejected offer plus a wage differential thereafter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding a wrongfully dismissed employee three months' notice, an additional two months' notice for bad faith (Wallace damages), and substantial indemnity costs.

The employee, a 47-year-old single mother, was given two weeks' working notice and required to train her replacement, who had already started working before she was notified of her termination.

When she objected, the employer threatened to report her as having resigned to deny her employment insurance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice period reasonable and upholding the bad faith damages due to the employer's insensitive and misleading conduct.