Sarah Eves

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by her employer and union.

Prior to the application, the union had filed a grievance on her behalf raising the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievance was filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and that the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against Canadian Blood Services.

The Tribunal raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction over the matter, given that the respondent receives federal funding and some of its services are federally regulated.

Both parties submitted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant's employment as a Supply Technician falls under provincial labour relations.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the essential operational nature of the applicant's work was provincially regulated, and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on association with a transgender co-worker, following the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate because it was filed past the 60-day deadline.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if reactivated, the application would be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the grievance arbitration had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations by finding no prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent requested an order during proceedings compelling the applicant to produce a complete copy of her family physician's medical file and to provide detailed witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a reasonable basis for concern regarding the completeness of the medical file and that the applicant's witness statements were inadequate.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately produce the requested documents and detailed witness statements, failing which the Tribunal may take further steps under Rule 5.

The respondents requested access to the applicant's medical records held by the hospital's Occupational Health and Safety Department and her WSIB file.

The applicant, who was self-represented, expressed a desire to keep her medical records confidential.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant had put her disability and the respondents' accommodation efforts in issue, the records were relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the records for specific periods, subject to strict confidentiality conditions and a process for the applicant to object to the further disclosure of specific records.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be barred or deferred because the applicant had commenced civil actions against them based on essentially the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the application was not barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil actions did not allege discrimination or seek a remedy under the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the civil actions had just commenced while the human rights hearing was scheduled to begin shortly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker and discrimination by her employer and union in their response.

The applicant sought to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal, which the Tribunal granted.

The union requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal employer investigation and a potential complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board constituted other proceedings that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal employer investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1 and that the mere possibility of another avenue is not a basis for dismissal.