Paulette Susan Haynes

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondent requested to add an organizational respondent, which was granted on consent.

The respondent also requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether there were good faith reasons for the delay before deciding on the dismissal request.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) arbitration had already dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the GSB arbitrator had addressed the core human rights issues, including the failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination, and had awarded reinstatement and lost wages.

Concluding that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Following a four‑day trial under the Simplified Rules in which the action was dismissed, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be ordered or that costs should be limited to a modest amount due to the nature of simplified procedure and the unsettled state of the law on the facts.

The court accepted that costs in Simplified Rules proceedings are often significantly lower than ordinary trial costs and should be assessed with that expectation in mind.

Considering the Rule 49 offer and the factors in Rule 57, the court fixed the defendant’s costs at a reduced amount inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

A volunteer at a community radio station alleged harassment by another volunteer and sought an injunction requiring the station to enforce its harassment policies, along with damages.

The court considered whether it should intervene in the internal affairs of a private volunteer organization that had not strictly followed its written harassment procedures.

Applying jurisprudence governing judicial oversight of voluntary associations, the court held that internal decision-making in such organizations attracts deference and intervention should be exercised cautiously.

Although the station did not strictly comply with its policies, it acted in good faith, made repeated efforts to resolve the dispute, and substantially complied with the spirit of its procedures.

In the circumstances, judicial intervention was not warranted.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and age after being required to take a mandatory Health Assessment Course following a patient complaint, which she claimed led to her forced retirement.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had pointed to evidence that could link the respondents' actions to the alleged Code grounds, including differential treatment of black and older employees regarding remedial action and accommodation.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to a merits hearing.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The union and the employer had settled the grievances and the union withdrew them, but the applicant refused to sign the settlement agreement that would have disposed of her human rights application.

The Tribunal held that, absent the applicant's consent to the settlement, the withdrawal of the grievances by the union did not preclude her from proceeding with her application.

The request to re-activate the application was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on age, disability, and place of origin.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the corporate respondent seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental distress based on the same factual circumstances.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application covered the same subject matter and sought remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The application was dismissed as barred by s. 34(11).

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the discharge of an employee.

The Board had found that the employee's sale of used parts and retention of the proceeds was based on a misunderstanding of workplace practice, rather than willful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence before it.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to present arguments and evidence regarding systemic race discrimination at her discharge grievance arbitration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had carriage of the grievance and was not obligated to follow the applicant's instructions on how to present the case, provided it fairly and carefully considered her suggestions.

The Board noted that the union had vigorously and thoroughly represented the applicant by advancing other arguments, including a poisoned work environment and differential treatment.