Michelle Alaine Alton

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal, claiming he was suspended and dismissed for failing to participate in a cover-up of alleged Code violations.

He sought an interim remedy of reinstatement, citing financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that an interim remedy was necessary to facilitate a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also directed submissions on a request to intervene and whether the application should be deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing to clarify allegations and discuss a timetable.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the potential consequences of failing to attend.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed requests for orders during proceedings and an interim remedy seeking reinstatement to his employment, alleging ongoing discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the significant onus to demonstrate that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy and confirmed that the application would continue to be held in abeyance pending the release of a decision in the applicant's first application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to amend his human rights application to include allegations of discrimination and harassment from 2010.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the applicant provided no explanation for failing to include the 2010 allegations in his original application and that the allegations were outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, noting that his conduct did not rise to the level of an abuse of process, though the respondent could raise the issue again at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the applicant had already filed a second application containing the same allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to allow the amendment, as it would require recalling witnesses and filing an amended response, and the allegations were already being addressed in the second application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of record of offences and reprisal.

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

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested to amend the application to add the grounds of disability and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add disability, as it was raised in the original application, but denied the addition of sexual harassment due to prejudice to the respondents.

Based on the amended application, the Tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect of success and declined to dismiss the application.

The applicant, a sous chef, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on multiple grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Tribunal found that the applicant's 2008 allegations were untimely, as they occurred more than a year before the next incident and no good faith reason for the delay was provided.

Second, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend his application to include new allegations, finding it would be unfair to the respondent at this stage of the proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal made directions regarding the admissibility of evidence from several proposed witnesses.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences, based on a job advertisement by the respondent that required a criminal record search.

A conference call was scheduled to hear submissions on whether the events amounted to discrimination.

The applicant failed to attend the conference call despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction, as the facts alleged did not suggest that the criminal records check would lead to the exclusion of a person protected by the Code.