Alan G. Smith

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After her legal representatives were removed from the record due to an inability to contact her, the applicant failed to attend a mandatory pre-hearing conference.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had been notified of the proceedings and warned of the consequences of non-attendance.

Given her failure to participate and meet her onus of proof, the application for arbitration was dismissed pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and section 23 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling from his bicycle and sustaining a severe head injury.

The insurer disputed that the injuries were caused by the use or operation of an automobile.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator heard uncontested expert evidence from a collision reconstructionist that the damage to the bicycle's front wheel could only have been caused by a motor vehicle running over it.

The arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was struck by an unidentified automobile, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing conference and could not be reached by his counsel despite multiple attempts, his counsel requested to be removed from the record.

The insurer consented to the removal.

The arbitrator granted the request to remove counsel and, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's continued non-attendance.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, noting the timing of the termination, comments about her appearance, and the issuance of a Record of Employment coded for pregnancy leave rather than dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $6,600 for lost wages and $12,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a security guard of Jewish and Israeli background, alleged that his employment was terminated and he was harassed by the respondents because of his ethnic origin and place of origin.

He also alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's loss of assignments was due to his own misconduct and client complaints, not discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of workplace harassment and reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he lacked the mental capacity to understand the release due to depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided fell short of establishing that the applicant was incapable of understanding the significance of the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated shortly before she was scheduled to return from a medical leave of absence.

The respondents maintained that the termination was solely due to a restructuring of the employer's retail operations that began prior to the applicant's leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondents established the termination was a legitimate business decision and that the applicant's disability was not a factor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police during a search and subsequent criminal charges.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with because the applicant pleaded guilty to a lesser criminal charge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the criminal proceedings only determined whether an offence was committed and did not address the human rights allegations of racial profiling.

Certain untimely allegations were dismissed on consent.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order to pay $1,000.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the breach of settlement had already been finally determined in the previous decision, rendering the Tribunal functus officio.

The Tribunal further noted that enforcement of its orders must be pursued through the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age after she retired at age 65.

She claimed she was forced to retire, denied a severance package, and denied dental and long-term disability insurance coverage post-retirement.

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

The applicant admitted she voluntarily retired to receive pension income and that retirement allowances were only offered for early retirement under the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the cessation of benefit plan coverage at age 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment following his dismissal.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling all claims under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic and psychological duress due to financial hardship and pressure from his lawyer.

The Tribunal found no evidence of legal duress that would vitiate the settlement agreement and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services because of disability and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding decisions on his workplace injury claim.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant had no evidence of differential treatment or any link between the WSIB's actions and a protected Code ground, and was essentially attempting to appeal WSIB decisions to the Tribunal.

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

The applicant alleged that her family physician discriminated against her on the basis of her place of origin (the Philippines) in the provision of medical services.

She claimed the physician made discriminatory remarks about fibromyalgia in the Filipino community, delayed a specialist referral, and refused to complete disability forms.

The Tribunal accepted the physician's version of events, finding that the physician merely expressed a general diagnostic observation based on her experience.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant was treated differently or disadvantageously compared to patients of other backgrounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal, arguing the application was untimely under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a WSIB decision and a union policy grievance under section 45.1.

The Tribunal found that the application was not plainly untimely, as the applicant alleged recent incidents including a defaced time card and pornography placed in his personnel file.

The Tribunal also held that neither the WSIB decision, which only addressed the lack of a traumatic incident for benefits, nor the policy grievance, which did not address the specific human rights allegations or involve the applicant, appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a union grievance arbitration regarding his termination.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process because the arbitration award dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request as it was filed within the 60-day time limit, but ordered a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the prior arbitration.

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

The application was deferred pending a grievance arbitration, which resulted in Minutes of Settlement and a full and final release signed by the applicant.

The applicant later sought to reactivate the tribunal application, arguing she did not understand the release, was under duress, and suffered from depression.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish incapacity or legal duress, and held that allowing the application to proceed in light of the release would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The reconsideration request itself was filed almost seven months past the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as the medical evidence provided was outdated and did not explain the delay.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet any of the substantive criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The applicant's bargaining agent, CUPE Local 2926, filed a request to intervene, arguing that the requested remedies, including reinstatement, could impact the collective agreement and the bargaining unit.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its established practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's application absent exceptional circumstances.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for the production of documents related to the applicant's communications with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care regarding out-of-province funding for rehabilitative services.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the documents were not relevant and not in his possession.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of whether the respondent offered the requested services and the compensation sought.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to conduct a diligent search and produce any requested documents in his possession.

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

After the criminal proceedings ended, the applicants failed to follow the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to either reactivate or formally withdraw their applications.

Despite multiple communications and an interim decision ordering them to clarify their intentions, the applicants failed to comply.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.