Tracy A. Kay

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court action.

The respondent confirmed the civil action had concluded and did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should be deferred due to a concurrent Small Claims Court action scheduled for trial.

Both parties agreed to the deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on creed, marital status, and association.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a counter-claim in a Small Claims Court action, or deferred due to a Ministry of Labour claim.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Small Claims Court counter-claim did not seek human rights remedies.

The request to defer to the Ministry of Labour was also denied as that claim had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether to defer pending the Small Claims Court process.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

He claimed he was unfairly demoted, paid less, denied promotions, and ultimately terminated.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was part of a legitimate corporate restructuring based on store seniority.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's discipline and termination were the result of repeated customer complaints regarding his customer service and his refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, rather than his race or reprisal for his human rights complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding a wrongfully dismissed employee three months' notice, an additional two months' notice for bad faith (Wallace damages), and substantial indemnity costs.

The employee, a 47-year-old single mother, was given two weeks' working notice and required to train her replacement, who had already started working before she was notified of her termination.

When she objected, the employer threatened to report her as having resigned to deny her employment insurance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice period reasonable and upholding the bad faith damages due to the employer's insensitive and misleading conduct.