Pamela Leiper

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on race, disability, age, and reprisal during a co-op placement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code beyond his own speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her retirement residence failed to accommodate her gluten intolerance and harassed her when she complained.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application during an eviction proceeding for rent arrears.

The Tribunal found that the LTB had addressed the same facts and issues, concluding that the landlord had taken reasonable measures to accommodate the applicant and that there was no basis for the harassment allegations.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for delay, arguing the applicant's employment was terminated in 2011 or early 2012, more than a year before the December 2013 application.

The applicant maintained she was never terminated and submitted a 2013 T4 statement as proof of ongoing employment.

The Tribunal found that the T4 suggested the applicant was still an employee in 2013, making the application timely.

Alternatively, the Tribunal held that any delay was incurred in good faith due to the T4 issuance, and allowed the application to proceed.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance and arbitration proceedings related to the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and those in the grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already initiated an internal failure to accommodate complaint that was proceeding to binding mediation/arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the mediation/arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues.

The applicant requested to bifurcate the hearing to deal first with the liability of the WSIB and its return to work specialist, and subsequently with the employer's liability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling reason to depart from the general practice of hearing all evidence concerning the single return to work meeting at the same time.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request for an additional hearing date to accommodate a witness who relocated out of the country.

The applicant, a registered nurse, alleged that she was subjected to sexual solicitation by the Director of Care at her former employer, who allegedly expected her to have a romantic relationship with the Assistant Director of Care.

She further alleged that both her former and subsequent employers reprised against her for rejecting these advances by mistreating her and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the alleged comments by the Director of Care were not sexual in nature and there was no evidence linking her mistreatment or termination to the rejection of any sexual advance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent stopped scheduling her for shifts and eventually terminated her.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as out of time, arguing the last shift worked was more than a year before filing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether the alleged unreturned calls, meeting, and delayed communication of termination constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ordered a summary hearing to assess whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability during a return to work meeting.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the style of cause to reflect its correct corporate name, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant filed a separate RFOP seeking to strike portions of the employer's response, amend the requested remedy, and seal certain notes.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's requests to the hearing adjudicator, finding that evidentiary and privilege issues are best determined during the hearing rather than in a factual vacuum.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment that dismissed his claim against Linamar for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the record contained evidence of actions and documents involving Linamar such that it could not be said there was no genuine issue for trial.

The summary judgment was set aside, and costs of the appeal were fixed at $10,000.