Matthew J. Mihailovich

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of two related union grievances.

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievances only addressed her lost employment and not human rights issues.

The respondent supported the deferral.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents or dismiss the allegations against them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual conduct of the respondents was a central issue and that a remedy could potentially be ordered against them personally.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case, noting that the matter was not appropriate for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The applicant requested an order permitting two witnesses, Dr. Ouchterlony and Dr. Warriner, to testify by teleconference, and to admit Dr. Warriner's late-filed neuropsychological assessment report.

The Tribunal denied the request for Dr. Ouchterlony to testify by teleconference, finding her evidence too important and complex for telephone testimony.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the admissibility of Dr. Warriner's report and testimony until after hearing the applicant and Dr. Ouchterlony, to better assess its relevance.

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse herself from hearing his human rights application against Wilfrid Laurier University.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the adjudicator was also hearing a separate application he filed against the University of Waterloo, which could lead her to subconsciously conflate the evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that a reasonable and informed person would not conclude that assigning the same adjudicator to two cases involving the same applicant gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In a human rights application against a university, the parties filed several Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documents relating to his other post-secondary education pursuits, finding them arguably relevant to the university's defence regarding his ability to achieve academic success.

The Tribunal deferred the university's request to dismiss allegations regarding application fees and the applicant's request to compel all admissions committee members to testify until after the applicant's evidence is heard.