Alan G. Smith

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of one's rights and awaiting the outcome of a civil action do not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging age discrimination, arguing that the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action did not seek remedies for discrimination.

However, given the substantial factual overlap and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance arbitration process.

The applicant's union, CUPE, subsequently withdrew the grievance and requested intervenor status in the human rights proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because there was no longer an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee it represents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, identifying that the application failed to allege specific acts of discrimination and was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant was directed to file submissions but failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and rejected the applicant's argument that her resignation constituted a further incident.

As the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding retirement benefits.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he only discovered the discriminatory treatment months after his retirement was finalized.

The Tribunal found that the discovery of new evidence did not establish good faith for the delay, and that the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the grievance only dealt with disability accommodation and not the allegations of discrimination based on age, race, and place of origin.

The Tribunal found that the key issue of disability accommodation was central to both proceedings and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant did not file submissions regarding the request.

The Tribunal found that the grievance filed by the applicant and her union was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove six individual respondents from a human rights application, arguing they were unnecessary parties as the institutional respondent accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

The applicant consented to the removal of two individuals but opposed the removal of the remaining four.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, as the institutional respondent was capable of remedying any infringement and leaving them as parties would unnecessarily complicate the process.

The request was granted and all personal respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceedings.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceedings, the respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the ESA proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant requested reactivation.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a conference call hearing to hear oral submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss, as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and two individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

Neither party filed submissions in response.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and deferral avoids adjudicative duplication.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts or grounds of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or a ground under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing concerns over a withdrawn grievance.

The Tribunal found that the remaining grievances were virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, marital status, race, and religion, stemming from the enforcement of a child support order by the Family Responsibility Office.

He requested an interim remedy to halt the enforcement, claiming it would leave him homeless and without food.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to provide the required declarations or demonstrate that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief.

The Tribunal also issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction as it challenged a court order and involved relationships not covered by the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of public transit services based on race and colour.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to Code grounds.

In his submissions, the applicant alleged discrimination based on his personal appearance, such as body weight, shaved head, and beard, but did not connect these to any protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final opportunity to file a Response by March 21, 2011, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and two individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance process was too lengthy and offered inferior remedies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that deferral avoids adjudicative duplication.