Rachel Silver

The applicant, a 66-year-old university professor, alleged age discrimination and reprisal after she was not selected for the long short-list for a Co-Director position at a research centre.

The Tribunal found that the hiring committee had credible, rational, and non-discriminatory reasons for not selecting the applicant, including her lack of academic fund-raising experience, limited administrative experience in a research centre context, and concerns about her collegiality and conduct.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, finding no evidence that the hiring committee was aware of her public opposition to the university's mandatory retirement policy or that it factored into their decision.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the university failed to investigate her complaint, finding she had not properly raised an internal complaint that would trigger a duty to investigate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that her three witnesses be permitted to testify by phone due to their locations in Ottawa and Saskatoon.

The respondent objected, citing prejudice to cross-examination, inability to monitor the witnesses, and lack of access to exhibits.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, finding that the witnesses were not testifying to contradictory versions of specific events, but rather to their experiences with the applicant.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose the CVs of her witnesses to the respondent.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after not being short-listed for a Co-Director position at York University.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on the relevance of six witnesses proposed by the applicant to challenge the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations.

The Tribunal allowed three witnesses whose evidence could speak to the credibility of the hiring committee's assessments regarding the applicant's interactions with diplomats and research reputation.

The Tribunal excluded three witnesses whose proposed evidence related to general character, teaching, or leadership skills not directly tied to the specific reasons given by the hiring committee for its decision.