Aida Gatfield

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued that her interpreter did not translate everything at the summary hearing and sought to introduce new facts and documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to point to any misinterpretation that affected the decision and that the facts and documents she relied upon were known to her at the time of the summary hearing.

The request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a).

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

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

The applicant relied on workplace incidents and an email between the respondent and its legal counsel discussing her age in the context of reasonable notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to her age, and that considering age for reasonable notice is appropriate.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

He claimed that a Probation and Parole Officer falsely indicated he had a gang affiliation, which led the Children's Aid Society to revoke his community access to his daughter.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a nexus between the Officer's provision of information and the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of creed, family status, and reprisal against a children's aid society and one of its workers.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints primarily related to her disagreement with court decisions denying her access to her children, and she failed to point to any evidence beyond her own speculation that the respondents' actions were linked to the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed confusion between the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and the Tribunal, and that he was waiting for the Centre to file his application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the limitation period and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, age, and reprisal.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondent disciplined her and issued a letter of expectation regarding a workplace incident involving a misplaced cell phone, and that this was motivated by her race, age, and prior human rights and WSIB claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant alleged he was terminated from his employment because of a disability while on medical leave.

Prior to filing his human rights application, he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The Employment Standards Officer found that the applicant was terminated due to the restructuring of the employer's business.

The Tribunal held that the Ministry of Labour proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the factual finding regarding the reason for termination precluded a finding of discrimination.

The application was dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former landlord and the City of Ottawa, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the landlord failed to properly install a walkway and subsequently filed eviction notices in reprisal for the applicant asserting his human rights.

He also claimed the City failed to enforce property standards regarding the walkway.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the landlord's or the City's actions to his disability, nor any evidence that the landlord's Landlord and Tenant Board applications were intended as a reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and age.

She subsequently requested to amend her application to add the ground of disability, based on allegations already pleaded regarding health-related absences and comments by her supervisor.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal allowed the age and disability claims to proceed, finding a sufficient nexus between the supervisor's alleged comments and the applicant's termination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims based on race and ethnic origin, finding no evidence to connect the applicant's treatment to those grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a mutual release when selling her mobile home to the respondent to settle eviction proceedings, and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the mutual release was valid and barred claims related to the sale of the home, as the applicant understood the document and was not under duress.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal found the application was filed out of time and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her disability or reliance on legal advice.

The application was dismissed.