Alison Renton

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application after her union withdrew her outstanding grievance.

The respondent took no position on the request, and the intervenor union did not file a response.

Finding that the grievance procedure had been completed, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the matter to mediation.

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

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations were untimely as they occurred more than one year before the application was filed, and the applicant did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegations, which included assumptions made by co-workers about where the applicant worked and a wage differential with a more senior co-worker, were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a former PhD student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after his PhD program was terminated and he was accused of plagiarism.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not establish any connection to a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the owners of the corporate respondent as personal respondents, alleging the corporate respondent or its assets had been sold.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding personal respondents and granted the request, finding that the applicant made specific allegations against one of the individuals that could constitute a Code violation, and that adding them at an early stage would not prejudice the respondents.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal withdraw a Case Assessment Direction, arguing he was denied the opportunity to file a reply to the respondent's submissions under Rule 9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that Rule 9 applies only to original pleadings, which were already closed.

The Tribunal noted the applicant would have the opportunity to respond to the respondent's submissions at the scheduled conference call hearing.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary teleconference hearing to address the timeliness of the application.

When the applicant failed to call in or otherwise communicate his inability to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

In an interim decision regarding case management issues, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce supporting documentation for various bank deposits and to clarify the status of her bank accounts.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant's treating physician to testify, noting he was not being called as an expert, but ordered the applicant to immediately produce the physician's medical records to the respondent to prevent trial by ambush.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal, the respondent requested that several paragraphs of the applicant's amended Application be struck for being vague, untimely, or contrary to a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal reviewed the disputed paragraphs, allowing some to remain, striking others that were overly broad or raised for the first time, and ordering the applicant to provide further particulars (such as dates) for the remaining vague allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of his Outlook email folder and interview evaluations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overly broad and lacking relevance to the issues of family status discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documentation related to his loss of wages claim, including income tax returns.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions on the timeliness of allegations predating the one-year limitation period and to provide an update on a parallel Employment Standards Act complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

She also filed concurrent grievances through her union.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the Application and the active grievances, the Tribunal deferred the Application.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed two requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent sought production of the applicant's personal bank records and other financial documents related to her loss of wages claim, arguing they were arguably relevant due to inconsistencies in her reported income from a personal business.

The Tribunal granted this request, ordering the applicant to produce the records.

The applicant sought to amend her application to include a claim for $30,000 in general damages and pre- and post-judgment interest, having initially filed as a self-represented litigant.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding it would not prejudice the respondent or affect the course of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer and union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending a grievance.

The employer responded that the grievance had been settled and requested dismissal.

The applicant and union failed to respond.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the applicant to advise within 7 days whether she intends to proceed, failing which the application will be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant provided confirmation that the criminal charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

As the respondents did not file a response, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter to be scheduled for a three-day hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of WSIB return to work services and appeals.

The respondent opposed the re-activation, arguing that multiple WSIB appeals remained outstanding and that proceeding in both forums would result in duplication and potential inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the factual and legal issues in the WSIB proceedings and the application.

The Tribunal ordered the application to continue to be deferred for a further 6 months, at which point the parties must provide a status update on the WSIB appeals.

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

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a union grievance.

After the grievance was withdrawn, the applicant made an untimely request to reactivate the application 18 months later.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an explanation for the delay.

When the applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural issues in an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended Application to include new allegations related to his suspension and termination, subject to specific parameters to prevent re-litigating previously decided issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also addressed issues regarding the respondent's disclosure of the Application in another proceeding and the applicant's communication with the Tribunal, providing directions on how to proceed.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights applications as abandoned after they failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicants argued they did not attend because they believed the hearing only pertained to one of the respondents and they were unaware the applications could be dismissed for non-attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicants received proper notice that clearly warned of the consequences of failing to attend and indicated the hearing pertained to both respondents.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld a human rights complaint and ordered remedies.

The respondent sought to introduce new evidence and argued the decision conflicted with Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair deficiencies in a party's case.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that its procedure was violated.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to permit his physician to testify on a specific date and to admit various medical documents.

The respondent agreed to the witness on the condition that the applicant disclose complete clinical notes and records from the Harrow Health Centre for a specific period.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose the requested medical documentation related to his back condition and absence from work, and agreed to hear the physician's testimony on the requested date.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic discrimination by the respondent regarding the recognition of barbering as a licensed trade and the hairstyling apprenticeship curriculum.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify a specific incident of discrimination within the one-year period prior to filing.

As the applicant conceded he had no excuse for the delay, the Tribunal concluded there was no good faith explanation for the late filing and dismissed the application as untimely.