Susan Adam Metzler

The applicant, an ordained Priest, filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin following his re-assignment by the respondent Bishop.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was ecclesiastical and subject to the Code of Canon Law.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Hart, the Tribunal found that the essential nature of the dispute concerned the assignment of a priest, which is an ecclesiastical issue.

Because the Code of Canon Law provides an internal review process that meets the requirements of natural justice, the applicant was required to pursue those avenues.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Following the closure of a refinery, 18 former employees filed human rights applications alleging that the employer discriminated against them on the basis of age, disability, gender, and family status by failing to rehire them for other positions within the company.

The applicants relied primarily on statistical evidence and a management ranking list.

The Tribunal found that the statistical evidence did not support an inference of discrimination and that the ranking list was based on performance rather than discriminatory factors.

After reviewing the individual circumstances of each applicant, the Tribunal concluded that none had established a prima facie case of discrimination or provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that protected grounds played a role in the hiring decisions.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a part-time cook/cleaner at a parish, took an eight-month leave of absence after sustaining physical injuries at another job.

When she attempted to return to work, the parish pastor informed her that her employment was terminated and her replacement would be kept on.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of her disability by failing to accommodate her return to work and terminating her employment.

The age discrimination allegation was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered human rights training and policy updates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent appraiser discriminated against him in the provision of services by undervaluing his home due to its proximity to the Douglas Creek Estates First Nations land dispute.

The applicant argued that the appraiser's use of the term 'native occupation' and his selection of comparators demonstrated an anti-native bias that negatively affected the appraisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the appraiser intentionally undervalued the property or that considering the unresolved land dispute as a factor in the neighbourhood's property values was discriminatory.

The applicants, former employees of a closed refinery, alleged age and disability discrimination when they were not hired for new positions within the respondent company.

The Tribunal heard the evidence of the lead applicant, who alleged his placement on an attendance management program negatively impacted his performance ranking and subsequent failure to be hired.

The Tribunal found the statistical evidence unreliable and concluded the lead applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his disability played a role in his performance assessment, ranking, or the decision not to hire him.