Zoe King

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the applicant's concurrent union grievances.

The applicant's union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting the established practice of allowing bargaining agents to intervene in employment discrimination cases.

The Tribunal also deferred the application, finding that the issues raised in the four active grievances overlapped with the concerns alleged in the human rights application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and citizenship, claiming he was denied seniority over a Canadian citizen who started work a week earlier but was hired later.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A.1 to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had no evidence beyond the circumstantial difference in citizenship to link the seniority decision to a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her former employer and individual respondents following a previous settlement for sexual harassment.

The respondents denied the allegations and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations incredible and internally inconsistent, and noted her failure to provide supporting evidence or identify witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, nearly 22 months after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified because she was relying on her union to address the issue through the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Yamana Gold Inc. brought an application to cease-trade the shareholder rights plan (poison pill) of Meridian Gold Inc. amid a hostile takeover bid.

The Ontario Securities Commission determined that Meridian's board had sufficient time to respond to the bid and assess any competing proposals.

The Commission ordered the poison pill cease-traded effective September 11, 2007, on the condition that Yamana extended its bid to the same date.