Matthew Adam Fisher

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase the amount of monetary damages sought for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to add a claim for loss of income and benefits.

The individual respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment related only to the relief sought and did not involve additional allegations, and that there was no prejudice to the respondents as a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The applicant, who suffers from Lupus, alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

She claimed she was subjected to harassing comments, denied accommodation, and terminated because of her disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of harassing comments and failure to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability and related absenteeism were factors in the respondent's decision to terminate her during a restructuring process.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The parties had agreed to the essential terms of employment in May 2007.

After the plaintiff started working, the defendant presented a document containing a termination clause limiting notice to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that the termination clause was null and void because the defendant provided no new consideration for the amendment to the existing oral contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on a reasonable notice period of 3.9 months.

The corporate respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing to obtain instructions from its insurer and gather documents.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings and the significant costs of travelling from overseas.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations, including the provision of detailed witness statements.

The applicant filed a request for an order to add a proposed corporate respondent, alleging that the original corporate respondent transferred its assets to avoid liability.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to add a party solely on the basis of successor or related employer principles, as the Human Rights Code does not contain such provisions.

Applying the test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal found no allegations that the proposed respondent violated the Code, as it was allegedly created after the application was filed.

The request was denied.