Timothy Bingham

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent employer reprised against her by denying her a voluntary exit opportunity.

The applicant conceded that these allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board and should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend her application to allege that the respondent's failure to investigate her reprisal allegations under its internal policy constituted a further reprisal.

The Tribunal found that this new claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence that the failure to investigate was motivated by an intention to punish the applicant for claiming her rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a jail guard, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being placed in the employer's Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program following absences related to a WSIB injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not establish that she suffered a disadvantage, as the attendance meeting was non-disciplinary, the employer offered accommodation, and the absences were ultimately removed from the program's calculation.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The employer requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The union requested dismissal on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of s. 45.1 under s. 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that s. 45.1 does not violate the Charter, as it does not restrict fundamental personal life choices.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding the substance of the allegations was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the union's actions to a protected ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for Reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant argued that the ongoing deferral breached section 7 of the Charter and that the union had unreasonably delayed advancing the grievance.

The Tribunal rejected the Charter argument, noting that the grievance had been referred to arbitration and the applicant was prepared to participate.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to reactivate the application or supervise the grievance process, and denied the request, maintaining the deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic and individual discrimination by her employer.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the Tribunal's deferral power under section 45 of the Human Rights Code violates section 7 of the Charter because it transfers control of human rights claims from individuals to unions.

The Tribunal held that section 7 is not engaged, as deferral is a procedural step that does not restrict fundamental personal choices.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.

The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.

The application against the GSB was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two interlocutory decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: deferring her human rights complaint pending a grievance, and adding her union as an intervenor.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances or loss of jurisdiction to justify reviewing interlocutory decisions.

The court also declined to hear a Charter issue that was not raised before the Tribunal.