Alan G. Smith

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

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

The respondent and the applicant's bargaining agent agreed with the deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the grievance was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, marital status, race, and creed against the Family Responsibility Office, his former spouse, and her lawyer, stemming from the enforcement of a child support order.

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

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the enforcement of a court order is not a 'service' under the Code, the Code does not cover personal relationships between spouses, and the Code does not cover the relationship between a party and opposing counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, age, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the applicant's concurrent WSIB claim.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it on the basis that the WSIB claim did not address all allegations, such as age discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, finding that the proceedings shared common underlying issues, particularly regarding the nature and extent of the applicant's disability and loss of employment income, and that deferral would prevent adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex regarding a denial of promotion and termination of employment.

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.

Both the applicant and the employer respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent school board and several 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 did not provide submissions, while the respondent board supported 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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties agreed to attend mediation, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requiring her to advise of her intentions and 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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and pregnancy.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the outcome of a reconsideration of an Ontario Ministry of Labour Order under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the ESA proceeding was virtually identical to the human rights application and that similar remedies were available.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

The institutional respondent brought requests to remove four personal respondents from the human rights application and to obtain access to the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents, finding that the overarching claim was based on a pattern of alleged discrimination by the institutional respondent and there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any violations.

The request for access to the OSR was dismissed as premature because the Confirmation of Hearing had not yet been issued.

The union's request to intervene was deferred pending notification of whether it maintained its request following the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process involving the same parties and subject matter.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent made submissions, and the applicant's union took no position.

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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After failing to respond to a demand for written submissions, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to participate in a teleconference hearing.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

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

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

The applicant was directed to file submissions by a specified date but failed to respond.

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

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

The institutional respondent requested a deferral because another proceeding involving the same parties and issues had been initiated.

The applicant was granted an extension to file a reply but failed to do so.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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.

The applicant was directed to file submissions within 30 days but failed to respond.

Consequently, 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.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination and directing the applicant to file submissions.

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

As a result, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to seek damages for wage loss in the amount of $27,300 and general damages of $15,000.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment was reasonable and would not prejudice the respondents given the hearing was five weeks away and the increase in damages was relatively small.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant argued that the grievance process was too slow and uncertain.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original deferral decision and that the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued that he was unaware of the limitation period and that the employer's failure to respond to his request to return to work constituted a continuing incident.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith reason for delay and that the employer's non-response was a continuing effect of the original incident, not a new act of discrimination.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove two individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex.

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

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, as the corporate respondent was capable of remedying any potential Code infringement.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The corporate respondent acknowledged that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment at all material times.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the personal respondents as parties, as the corporate respondent could remedy any human rights violations found.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.