Alan G. Smith

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add his supervisor as a personal respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the corporate respondent was already a party and there was no compelling juridical reason to add the supervisor personally.

The Tribunal emphasized that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is discouraged where a corporate respondent is deemed liable for the actions of its employees under section 45(1) of the Code and there is no issue regarding its ability to respond to or remedy an alleged infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting updated contact information and his intentions regarding the application.

After a final warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against a bus company.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that its inter-provincial transportation business falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the federally-regulated respondent and deeming the application abandoned due to the applicant's failure to file submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondents delayed providing his HIV test results to his family physician and disclosed his HIV status to his employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence linking the respondents' actions to his alleged disability.

Furthermore, the applicant's test results were negative and he had never been diagnosed with HIV.

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

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

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to provide a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, but the mail was returned and the telephone numbers provided were out of service.

As the applicant failed to provide up-to-date contact information in accordance with Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin, claiming the condominium board and property management failed to properly deal with noise complaints.

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

Finding that the applicants could only point to a single brief conversation about their native language, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of proving a link between the respondents' actions and the prohibited grounds.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding a hearing and decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the content of an adjudicative decision made by a statutory tribunal.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage.

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

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

The applicant's union supported the deferral, noting that the grievances addressed the same subject matter.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process was based on the same facts and human rights issues.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to allow the applicant to clarify her allegations.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the grounds of timeliness and that the substance of the application had been dealt with in a grievance settlement and a WSIB claim.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed that a half-day hearing by conference call be convened to hear submissions on the preliminary issues of timeliness, section 45.1 of the Code, and jurisdiction over a specific incident.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices, an Interim Decision, and a Case Assessment Direction warning them of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondents waived their right to participate and are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant was given an opportunity to file additional materials before a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status culminating in her termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was voided because the respondent breached a non-disparagement clause.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent breached the non-disparagement clause and concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process given the clear terms of the release.

The application was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to allow the applicant to clarify his allegations.

The applicant failed to call in for the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response to the second Notice of Application despite multiple notices and a prior interim decision warning of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered that the application proceed without the respondent's participation, deeming the respondent to have waived its rights and accepted all allegations in the application.

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

Following confirmation by a receiver that the respondent was insolvent, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents, as the corporate respondent could remedy any potential Code infringement and no prejudice would result to the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated because of her race and colour.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant was a human resources professional who understood her rights.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's ongoing WSIB claim, which involved overlapping issues of disability, accommodation, and loss of earnings.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent results and would not be an efficient use of adjudicative resources.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $1,000 within the agreed four-week period.

The respondents missed the deadline by approximately one week due to their counsel's unexpected medical leave, but promptly offered to deliver the funds upon realizing the error.

The applicant refused the funds and sought to have the settlement rescinded.

The Tribunal found the delay was a trivial breach caused by inadvertence that resulted in no significant harm to the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the settlement and ordered the respondents to pay the original $1,000 settlement amount.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that he was treated worse than criminals regarding his disability pension, and that he lacked funds for judicial review.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5 and was merely attempting to re-argue his case rather than addressing the jurisdictional issue.