Mélissa Lacroix

The applicant, a nursing student, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin, as well as reprisals, against the respondent college and its staff.

The allegations stemmed from a plagiarism investigation where the applicant was ultimately cleared, and subsequent academic difficulties.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not claimed or enforced a right under the Code prior to the alleged reprisals, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant requested an extension of time, disclosure of exam copies, and access to his student email accounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the extension of time unnecessary due to a rescheduled hearing, and the document disclosure request premature under Rule 16.

The respondents noted the exam copies had been destroyed in accordance with college policy.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to strike the applicant's Reply, arguing it improperly invoked a new social area (services) and reiterated facts from the Application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it more appropriate to amend the Application to add the social area of services, as it better reflected the allegations.

The respondents were permitted to amend their Response to address the addition.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the organizational respondent to disclose the contact information of four former classmates so they could be added as respondents to his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request and removed the classmates as respondents, finding that the Human Rights Code does not cover allegations of discrimination or harassment against fellow classmates.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision imposing a first collective agreement under the Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The employer argued the board exceeded its jurisdiction by implicitly treating it and a related hospital as a single employer, and that the wage and benefit increases were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board merely used the hospital as a comparator for wages and benefits, which was within its jurisdiction.

The court also held that the board's decision on wages and benefits was reasonable and entitled to deference.