Nancy Salerno

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against her on the basis of age through the actions of its by-law officers.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and the applicant failed to establish a series of incidents or a good faith reason for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided only bald assertions and no evidence linking the by-law enforcement actions to her age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging wrongful termination due to a work-related illness and workplace complaints.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance on similar grounds, which was settled for a lump sum payment equal to 28 weeks of pay.

Although the applicant did not sign the Minutes of Settlement, he cashed the settlement cheque.

The Tribunal held that cashing the cheque constituted implicit acceptance of the settlement.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as its substance had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the City of Vaughan discriminated against her on the basis of race and ethnicity when it closed its file regarding her complaints about a neighbour's driveway and air conditioner.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence connecting the City's actions to her race or ethnicity, and that her allegations of harassment did not constitute discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

He claimed he was denied the opportunity to drive a fire truck, subjected to derogatory comments about his traditional food, and improperly directed to remove a baseball cap indoors.

The Tribunal found no prima facie case of discrimination regarding the cap and food incidents, as there was no evidence linking the actions to a prohibited ground.

While a prima facie case was established regarding the denial of driving duties, the respondents provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation based on the applicant's driving history and the Captain's discretion in assigning duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status because his employer required a two-year waiting period before his common-law partner could be added to his group benefits, a requirement not imposed on married employees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that section 25(2) of the Human Rights Code, read with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and O. Reg. 286/01, explicitly permits differentiation in health benefit plans based on marital status when providing benefits for an employee's spouse.