Mireille Khoraych

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing workplace bullying, denial of E.I. benefits, and termination of employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding E.I. benefits and termination had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence connecting these events to the applicant's disability.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her medical condition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin following his termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, including delay and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was timely but dismissed it under section 45.1, as the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and settled through the union grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age, three and a half years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to pursuing other legal avenues, including a grievance, an Employment Standards Act claim, a Duty of Fair Representation complaint, and a small claims court action.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the underlying facts were also the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance overlapped significantly with those in the application.

Applying its general approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her former employer and her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the union to pursue her grievances and was unaware of her rights.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding that waiting for another proceeding to conclude and ignorance of rights without making inquiries do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the applicant alleged discriminatory incidents, including a transfer to another location, that occurred within one year of filing.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing.

The applicant, a water operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being disciplined for refusing to clean washrooms at his workplace.

He claimed that as a Sri Lankan, he had a cultural sensitivity to cleaning washrooms and that he was the only operator required to perform this duty.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the requirement to clean washrooms to the applicant's heritage, and evidence showed that cleaning was a standard duty for all water operators.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the early production of documents and the production of job descriptions for four personal respondents ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for job descriptions, finding them irrelevant to the test for removing personal respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early production, noting that the standard 14-day disclosure rule for summary hearings applied and the applicant provided no compelling reason to deviate from it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment 16 months after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to depression and the time it took to complete the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating that his disability prevented him from pursuing his rights within the timeline, noting he was actively pursuing a grievance during that period.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, citizenship, and creed.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and argued that several allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that evidence was required to determine if an inference of discrimination could be drawn.

The Tribunal also found the application timely, as the allegations were sufficiently thematically connected to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Requests for document production and intervention were also denied as premature or incomplete.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing related grievance arbitration based on the same facts.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, inconsistent findings, and duplication of resources.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s employment-related claim under the Simplified Procedure, the court determined costs.

The defendant sought costs based on the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including refusal to consent to a pleading amendment, late service of materials, failure to comply with procedural timelines, and conduct that caused adjournment of the trial.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, along with the parties’ settlement offers under Rule 49.

The court found the plaintiff’s conduct lengthened the proceedings and warranted costs above partial indemnity.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendant in the amount of $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued she was ignorant of her rights and had pursued other avenues, such as an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude do not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination.

After failing to dial into a scheduled conference call regarding potential dismissal for delay, and failing to provide updated contact information or requested documents, the respondents requested the application be declared abandoned.

The Tribunal found the applicant had attempted to participate but misunderstood the dial-in instructions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide updated contact information, the previously requested documents, and an explanation for her failures within 10 days, failing which the application may be declared abandoned.