M. David Ross

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer, King Township, alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, sex, and reprisal.

She subsequently requested to add three individuals as respondents: Alan Jackson, Rick Hampton, and Dina Hampton.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth to determine whether to add the proposed respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Alan Jackson, finding that the allegations of sexist comments could support a finding of sexual harassment for which the employer is not vicariously liable.

The Tribunal denied the request to add Rick Hampton, as the single allegation against him did not amount to harassment and the employer would be vicariously liable.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Dina Hampton, as the alleged harassing conduct was not connected to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant, a black female of African origin, alleged that her employment was terminated on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent terminated both the applicant and a Caucasian co-worker following a serious incident where an autistic individual under their care went missing.

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

Finding that the applicant's allegations were based entirely on unsupported suspicion and speculation without any evidence linking the termination to Code-related factors, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and a failure to investigate by her employer and supervisors.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the Code grounds, relying on evidence of similar complaints from other female employees.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing to determine if his application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had previously requested an adjournment due to illness, which was denied.

On the day before the hearing, he left a voicemail stating he would not attend due to illness and a criminal harassment charge.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a detailed written explanation and medical confirmation for his absence by a specified date, failing which the application may be dismissed.