Alan G. Smith

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting a status update and warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

After requesting to reschedule the hearing dates, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she had cancelled the application due to work commitments.

The Tribunal made several attempts to contact the applicant and warned her that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated on a prohibited ground.

Following mediation, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the corporate employer as a respondent and to amend the application to increase the requested damages to $40,099.82.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding no prejudice to the respondents in allowing the amendment and noting that the allegations could support a finding of Code violations against the corporate employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for untimeliness.

The applicant argued the delay was due to fear of professional repercussions from his regulatory body.

The Tribunal found this explanation did not account for why the passage of time altered his situation or why he did not file within the limitation period.

Finding no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on August 3, 2011, despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal stood the matter down for thirty minutes, but the applicant did not appear or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment following his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same termination.

The respondents consented to the deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing the arbitration might not fully address damages.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the key issue in both proceedings was the termination of employment, and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal with respect to accommodation based on the receipt of public assistance, stemming from his eviction from a housing co-operative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations pertained to general unfairness and failure to follow bylaws rather than discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after not being awarded the position of Fire Chief.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the narrative of the Application on consent.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the incumbent Fire Chief, finding he had the potential to be directly and significantly affected by the final decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability (mental illness) after the respondent denied his request for an internal review.

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

The applicant's written submissions failed to explain how the treatment he received was distinguishable from that received by persons without a mental illness.

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

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability.

Before filing its Response, the respondent employer requested an order for access to the applicant's internal occupational health and WSIB files.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent needed the medical information to meaningfully respond to the allegations, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting disclosure to necessary personnel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race in the area of goods, services or facilities.

The respondent submitted that the application pertained to employee washroom facilities and arose in the course of employment.

Following a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant requested to amend the application to reflect discrimination in employment and to add the Amalgamated Transit Union as an interested party.

The Tribunal granted the amendment on consent and ordered that the union receive notice of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his rental accommodation.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already resolved through a settlement agreement at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the LTB proceeding and subsequent settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application, including allegations of racism and noise complaints.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant's union, CUPE, requested intervenor status.

The applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors and noting the applicant's consent, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status, finding it had a sufficient interest in the proceeding as the applicant's exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the WSIB's labour market re-entry services.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction and declined to dismiss the application at a preliminary stage.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

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

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

The applicant consented to the deferral, and the respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the grievance and the application dealt with virtually identical subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of ethnic origin and creed, arising from the termination of a trailer park lease.

The respondents requested to defer the application because the applicant had also commenced a parallel civil action in Small Claims Court alleging breach of contract and wrongful eviction.

The Tribunal found that the close relationship between the facts and issues in the two proceedings strongly favoured deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The criminal proceeding concluded with the withdrawal of charges and the personal respondent entering into a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

As the issues were no longer before the courts and the respondents did not oppose, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled for mediation.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) regarding coverage for out-of-province treatment.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, noting that the proceedings raised identical key issues and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination following his termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a realistic alternative to signing the release and had consulted a lawyer, meaning the release was not signed under economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.