Mindy Noble

The applicant in a housing discrimination case requested an order permitting her doctor to testify by teleconference.

The respondent did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the doctor's evidence was not extensive, credibility was not a significant issue, and there was no conflicting evidence, subject to the applicant providing the doctor's clinical notes to the respondent.

The applicant, who has a developmental disability, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of an ongoing discriminatory wage differential as out of time.

The Tribunal previously found that the ongoing practice of paying her less than non-disabled employees was not a continuing contravention under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that the ongoing wage differential constituted a series of incidents, making the allegations timely.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration and directed further proceedings to determine the merits and potential remedy.

The applicant, a former waitress at the respondents' restaurant, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

She claimed the personal respondent made sexual comments, touched her inappropriately, and terminated her employment when she confronted him.

She also alleged post-termination reprisals, including a threat of civil action from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferring the respondents' evidence that she was terminated for poor work performance.

The Tribunal also held that the threat of civil action in a letter from the respondents' counsel was protected by absolute privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release during a mediation.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to duress, financial pressure, and lack of understanding.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of unconscionability, coercion, or duress sufficient to override the legally binding agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.