Alison Renton

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents.

While the first application was under reserve following a hearing, the parties settled the second application and signed Minutes of Settlement containing a broad release.

The respondents argued the release settled both applications, while the applicant argued it only applied to the second.

The Tribunal found the release language was unambiguous and, applying principles of contract interpretation, concluded that the broad 'any and all applications' language covered the first application, which was outstanding at the time the settlement was signed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to restrict the admissibility of parol evidence regarding minutes of settlement, arguing the minutes unambiguously settled the current application.

The applicant opposed, arguing the minutes only settled a separate application and that extrinsic evidence is necessary to resolve ambiguity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva to find that evidence of surrounding circumstances and post-settlement conduct may be admissible to interpret the minutes.

A hearing was ordered to determine whether the minutes settled the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and subsequently commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

Finding that the civil matter involved overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged that the respondent employment agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex, gender identity, and gender expression by posting a job advertisement seeking a 'woman' for a receptionist position.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant possessed protected characteristics, she did not experience adverse treatment because she self-identifies as a woman and did not apply for the position before the advertisement was removed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two applications under the Human Rights Code.

The first alleged that his former employer breached the confidentiality clause of a prior settlement agreement by making negative comments about him in the auto industry.

The second alleged that another dealership refused to hire him because he had filed a human rights application against his former employer, constituting discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistent evidence and disruptive behaviour during the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the refusal to hire the applicant was based on his poor reputation in the industry, not on any knowledge of his prior human rights application.

Both applications were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a bank alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising the applicant that the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated service provider and directing her to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and, alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction, as banks are federally-regulated enterprises subject to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal against multiple respondents, including her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the union respondent on the basis that the allegations might fall outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that it was not plain and obvious that the application lacked jurisdiction, as the allegations pertained to a failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondents to file their responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of WSIB and Employment Standards Act proceedings.

After the applicant's legal representative withdrew, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directly to inquire about the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability against two different respondents arising from the same incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the applications should be consolidated or heard together.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that while the respondents were different and their interests might not align, the issues arose out of similar facts.

To avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex against her employer, Securitas, her supervisor, and the client company, Toyota, where she worked as a security guard.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against Toyota and its employee, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no link between their actions and the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against Securitas and the supervisor regarding a July 2013 disciplinary incident as an abuse of process, noting that the applicant had already received the benefit of a grievance settlement regarding those issues.

The remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged unfair treatment and her sex.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding goods, services, and facilities after being subjected to security screening, including lifting his pant leg, at a courthouse.

The applicant claimed the search was conducted because of his dishevelled appearance resulting from his invisible disabilities.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting the security measures to his disability.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding overlapping issues, including her ability to work and entitlement to benefits.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code at this stage but ordered it deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings on the same factual issues.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that closed her breach of settlement application for failure to serve the respondents.

The applicant's counsel argued that an administrative oversight caused the failure to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that despite the oversight, the respondents had still not been served well beyond the six-month limitation period, and the applicant had failed to send the application to the respondents' known address.

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

The applicant failed to comply with disclosure obligations and did not respond to the respondent's request for particulars.

After failing to provide availability for a case management conference call, the Tribunal scheduled a call and warned the applicant that failure to attend could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not call in or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that the parties had reached a settlement.

The applicant argued there were factual errors and challenged the finding of a settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and had not established any new facts or other factors under Rule 26.5 that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the social ground of his human rights application from 'membership in a vocational association' to 'goods, services and facilities'.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order directing the applicant to provide particulars and supporting documentation regarding his allegations of discrimination based on race, colour, and creed.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the requested information relevant to the allegations, and ordered the applicant to provide the particulars and documents, allowing the respondent to file an amended Response thereafter.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions in the Police Services Act make materials from OIPRD proceedings inadmissible before the Tribunal.

The respondent was directed to file a Response.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Nurses of Ontario during its fitness to practise and disciplinary proceedings against her.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application was based almost exclusively on information, documents, and decisions from the College's proceedings, which are strictly inadmissible in civil proceedings under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Without this evidence, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's union had filed two grievances that substantially overlapped with the facts and human rights issues in the application, including allegations of harassment, discrimination, and termination.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings where a grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.