Sarah C. Crossley

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to remove references to damages for dismissal in order to pursue other causes of action in court.

The Tribunal initially granted the request without prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents subsequently requested an extension of time to respond, claiming they missed the request due to a spam filter.

The Tribunal treated this as a request for reconsideration but ultimately upheld its original decision, finding no current abuse of process or prejudice to the respondents, and noting that the respondents could raise jurisdictional arguments if the applicant pursued a claim in court.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent Town of Fort Frances requested to be removed as a party, arguing it was merely the sole shareholder of the respondent Fort Frances Power Corporation and had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request at this preliminary stage, noting the applicant's assertion that her pay cheques and benefits came from the Town, and held that the Town could renew its request with evidentiary support if mediation failed.

The applicant requested that his human rights application move forward after being held in abeyance for a year and a half pending a related decision on whether the respondent's employment relations fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The respondent maintained it falls under federal jurisdiction and requested the abeyance continue.

The Tribunal found it would not be in the interests of justice to proceed while its jurisdiction remains undetermined, and ordered the application to remain in abeyance.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The applicant had previously taken medical leaves but had returned to full-time work without requesting further accommodation.

The respondent terminated the applicant for cause after discovering he had made unauthorized loans to subordinate employees using company equipment, violating multiple workplace policies.

The Tribunal applied the social model of disability and found the applicant did not have an actual disability at the time of termination, nor did the respondent perceive him to have one.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination, agreeing that the Meiorin analysis applied rather than the Law analysis.

The court also upheld the finding that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding the tribunal breached the duty of fairness by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the tribunal for a rehearing on remedy only.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination and its conclusion that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement, as it did not prove it canvassed alternatives to its discriminatory practice.

However, the court found the tribunal breached natural justice by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to a different tribunal member for a rehearing solely on the issue of remedy.