Alison Renton

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have sought particulars rather than dismissing the application and raised a new ground of "race".

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on ethnic origin, creed, and reprisal against his former property management company.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely and had a reasonable prospect of success.

While the application was found to be timely due to a holiday extension, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that alleged breaches of a prior settlement must be filed under section 45.9, and the remaining allegations of discrimination and reprisal had no reasonable prospect of success as they did not establish a link to Code grounds or meet the legal definition of reprisal.

During a case management conference call, the respondent sought production of the applicant's corporate medical file and WSIB file.

The applicant consented to the disclosure of her corporate medical file for the period from 2009 to April 17, 2012, to the respondent's counsel and instructing client.

The parties agreed to defer the issue of the WSIB file production to the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the corporate medical file in accordance with the consent.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in the termination of child care services.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants failed to attend the summary hearing or provide any explanation for their absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned and confirmed it does not have jurisdiction to award costs.

The intervenor, United Steelworkers Local 2251, requested leave to withdraw from participating in the human rights proceedings.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted the intervenor's request to withdraw and amended the style of cause accordingly.

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

The respondents opposed the re-activation, noting the grievance was still before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found no new information to justify re-activation and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the release of the GSB Vice Chair's decision on preliminary issues or for a further three months.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination regarding the use of a service animal at the respondents' restaurant.

The respondents failed to file Responses despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.

Applying the approach from Kearns, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations and waived their right to participate.

The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed without further notice to the respondents and scheduled a case management teleconference to determine next steps.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

Three of the respondents filed responses, but one personal respondent did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5, and granted him a final 14 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding matters that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondents and the union consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferring to the concurrent proceeding serves the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant, a supervisor, filed a human rights application against his subordinate, alleging discrimination on the basis of colour and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the respondent harassed him by failing to cooperate in the workplace accommodation process and by making a comment about their different skin colours.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the colour allegation was too vague and did not establish disadvantage or harassment, and that the allegations did not meet the statutory definition of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding disclosure obligations, including providing a list of witnesses and anticipated evidence.

Despite multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, claiming he was unable to access LGBT websites at a public library due to censorship.

The library filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and added the library as an intervenor, noting that the application pertained to the library's internet policies and computer systems, and that one of the requested remedies would require the library's action.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations and warning that failure to do so would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing dates and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a horse handler, suffered a workplace injury to his arm and was subsequently sent home and issued a Record of Employment by the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to engage in any discussion about accommodation or modified work, breaching both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal further found that the applicant was terminated because of his disability, rejecting the respondent's claims that he quit or was laid off due to a shortage of work.

The respondent was ordered to pay $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages, and the owners were ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and procedural unfairness during the summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify the new evidence or explain why it could not have been obtained earlier, and that the summary hearing process was procedurally fair.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on pregnancy and family status.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the ESA proceedings.

Despite the applicant's request to proceed, the Tribunal deferred the application to prevent concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the ESA complaint was filed first and a meeting was already scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that her previous representative withdrew his services and she had recently retained a new representative, requiring more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining a new representative shortly before a hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

The applicant argued that the grievance arbitration was delayed and his life was on hold.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the arbitration hearing was ongoing and the parties were awaiting a decision on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was still ongoing and dismissed the request, ordering that the application remain deferred until the conclusion of the arbitration process.

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

The respondent and the applicant raised issues involving the applicant's union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada.

The Tribunal provided the union an opportunity to request intervenor status.

The union filed a request to intervene, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by a represented employee alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, filed separate human rights applications regarding the mother's use of a service animal at the respondents' restaurant.

The respondents failed to file Responses to the applications.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondents 14 days to file Responses and explain their delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without them.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two applications be heard together due to common issues of fact and law.