Alan G. Smith

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

The applicant's reconsideration request raised new facts regarding the employer's alleged failure to file a mandatory report with a professional college, but failed to address the issue of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and was improperly attempting to re-argue the merits of his case.

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with his human rights application after a related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding was withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the Request to proceed and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The Tribunal also set a timeline for submissions regarding the applicant's request to amend the Application to add a personal respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act claim alleging breaches of pregnancy and parental leave provisions.

Neither party made submissions on the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, noting that the remedies available under both statutes are similar.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, which alleged sexual harassment and discrimination in employment.

The respondent denied the allegations and asserted the applicant was terminated for performance concerns and insubordination.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the matters raised were within its jurisdiction, there was a significant factual dispute, and it could not be said that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The respondent requested that the application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant argued that the conduct constituted a series of incidents, with the last incident occurring within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances did not make out a plain and obvious lack of jurisdiction based on delay.

The Tribunal deferred the evidentiary issues relating to delay to be decided alongside the substantive issues at a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment by the respondent employer.

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

Despite the applicant's objections regarding the length of the grievance process and alleged employer stalling tactics, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding accommodation for a motorized scooter.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had an ongoing matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found significant factual overlap between the two proceedings and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the LTB process to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondent, the corporation's president, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent could remedy any potential violations, the individual respondent's conduct was not a central issue, and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed to prevent unnecessary complexity.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination based on a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's submissions described a toxic work environment and bullying but did not link the treatment to a protected ground or provide evidence of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

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 subject matter.

The applicant's union filed submissions in support of deferral.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for apparent lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant responded with submissions and a request to amend the application to add family status and marital status, alleging she was asked inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The Tribunal found no plain and obvious lack of jurisdiction and granted the request to amend, noting the application had not yet been served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Orangeville Police Association requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting the union's significant interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of outstanding Police Services Act charges against the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication, finding a significant factual overlap between the allegations of reprisal and the subject matter of the Police Services Act charges.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he had abandoned a related Superior Court proceeding shortly before filing with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that awaiting the outcome of another legal proceeding does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on receipt of public assistance, claiming his rent geared to income formula did not account for electricity costs unlike others.

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

Finding that the applicant did not explain how he was treated differently from those not receiving social assistance, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious the matter fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a previous decision.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over adjudicators acting in their decision-making capacity due to judicial immunity, and that adjudicative outcomes are not 'services' under the Code.

The applicant accepted the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the case.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his pension entitlement following a workplace closure.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that while the grievance settlement constituted a proceeding, it only addressed the applicant's entitlement to a vehicle voucher and did not deal with the pension-related age discrimination allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing that the grievance process was still active and awaiting arbitration dates.

The Tribunal found that the grievance-arbitration procedure was continuing and that the applicant's dissatisfaction with its pace was not a sufficient reason to reactivate the Tribunal process.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by court staff during family law litigation.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from the application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the overarching claim was based on a pattern of alleged discrimination by the institutional respondent, which had the ability to remedy any violations.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents to prevent the hearing process from becoming unnecessarily complicated.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the issues in dispute.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline.

As a result, 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 (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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