Matthew Mihailovich

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability and age brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all correspondence and emails between specific individuals over a two-year period.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal concluded the request was overbroad, not sufficiently particularized, and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that a prior WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision was limited to workplace injuries and did not address the applicant's non-work-related disabilities or the full scope of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent was liable for his conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, alleging failure to accommodate and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The Tribunal proposed to consolidate the applications.

The parties agreed that the applications could be heard together.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the applicant's paralegal representative as an applicant to the proceeding, noting that a representative charging a fee cannot bring an application on behalf of another person.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application alleging reprisal, on the basis that there was an ongoing Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim before the Ministry of Labour dealing with the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the ESA claim was for unpaid wages while the application was for reprisal under the Code.

The Tribunal found that the factual circumstances in both proceedings were identical, involving the alleged improper deduction of courier and cancelled cheque fees as a reprisal.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the ESA process.

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

He claimed his employer failed to accommodate his cognitive limitations, resulting from a workplace head injury, by not communicating with him exclusively in writing.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success, as he could not establish that the employer's telephone calls caused him any substantive disadvantage or hampered his return to work, given he was medically unable to work at the time.

The application was dismissed.