Michelle Mulgrave

The applicant filed a request to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal and to increase the remedy sought.

The respondents did not file any submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegation flowed directly from the applicant pursuing her rights, was raised well in advance of the hearing, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the City of Mississauga.

She argued the City breached its duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate her complaint of discrimination regarding a taxi service, and that the Tribunal breached natural justice by not holding a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the City was not in an employment or service relationship with the applicant, but merely enforcing its by-laws, and therefore the allegations were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after a taxi driver denied her entry because she uses a guide dog.

The City of Mississauga requested summary dismissal as the applicant made no allegations of discrimination against it regarding its investigation of her complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against the City.

The applicant also requested to add the taxi driver as an individual respondent because the taxi company claimed its drivers are independent contractors.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the driver, finding his conduct central to the Application and noting the company's dispute over liability.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the remedy sought and for the production of documents.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the applicant to increase the general damages claimed to $15,000 and add a claim for lost wages of $13,662.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend her application to add Easton's Group of Hotels Inc. as a corporate respondent, include additional allegations, and add public interest remedies.

The respondents did not object to the amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that Easton's employees may have been involved in the allegations and that there was no prejudice to the respondents given the stage of the proceedings.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include a public interest remedy, specifically human rights training and a policy concerning racial profiling for the officers involved and the Direct Action Response Team (DART) unit.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was late and would unduly lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendment would not substantially lengthen the hearing as the allegations focused on events limited in time and place.

The Tribunal also noted that the issue of document production had been resolved.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination after being denied a retention bonus because she was on maternity leave during the final month of the retention period.

The applicant brought a request for an order to compel the respondent and two third-party former employers to produce documents relating to a co-worker who allegedly received the bonus despite being absent from the workplace.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents, including the co-worker's payslip with her home address redacted, and a list of the co-worker's absences during the retention period.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged that he was racially profiled and subjected to unnecessary aggressive behaviour when he was stopped, questioned, and briefly detained by a police officer investigating a nearby robbery.

The Tribunal found that the officer had reasonable grounds to stop the applicant, who matched the initial description of the suspect and was seen in the vicinity shortly after the robbery.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application, finding no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add requests for monetary damages, policy development, and training.

The respondent did not file a response or oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments reasonable and granted the request, noting no prejudice to the respondent as the hearing was scheduled for a later date.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO).

The ESO had previously denied the applicant's claim for termination pay, finding him guilty of wilful misconduct for smoking marijuana while driving a company vehicle.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the ESO's decision focused solely on the misconduct and did not address the human rights issues, such as whether the applicant had a disability, whether the disability contributed to the misconduct, or whether the employer failed to accommodate him.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking details of the respondents' witness evidence and disclosed a complete audio recording shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents requested an adjournment, on consent, citing insufficient time to prepare and prejudice from the late disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify adjourning the hearing at the last minute.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of disability by terminating her after she requested medical leave for breast cancer treatment.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,640 in special damages.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings or damages assessment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add gender as a ground of discrimination, increase the general damages claimed to $25,000, and add a request for a public interest remedy regarding the respondent's appearance standards.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments did not change the nature of the matter or necessitate further evidence, and allowed the amendments to the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the lawyer with carriage of their case left the firm and other lawyers were unavailable.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the circumstances justified a brief delay, and directed the parties to provide new available dates.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by terminating her employment after she disclosed a breast cancer diagnosis, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal awarded $2,640 for wage loss and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the applicant's extreme vulnerability and the callous treatment by her supervisors.

Reinstatement and prospective wage loss were denied because the applicant's position had been eliminated.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent's supervisors to complete human rights training to promote future compliance.

The applicant, a leasing agent, was diagnosed with breast cancer and required an indefinite leave of absence for surgery and treatment.

Upon informing her employer, a dispute arose regarding whether she resigned or was requesting medical leave.

The respondent employer maintained she had resigned and subsequently barred her from the premises.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not resign, but was terminated.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by terminating her employment instead of accommodating her disability-related absence short of undue hardship.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy to be determined at a later date.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming a numbered company, two personal respondents, and a sole proprietorship with the same business name as respondents.

The sole proprietor requested to be removed, stating he had no connection to the applicant's employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the sole proprietor and removed him as a party.

The moving party brought a preliminary motion, supported by the complainant, to allow a witness residing in Nunavut to testify by telephone conference call.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that the witness's credibility was in issue and that her evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the responding party would not be significantly prejudiced by the electronic taking of evidence, given the high costs and disruption of requiring the witness to travel to Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the evidence be taken by video conference if reasonably practicable, or otherwise by telephone.