Alison Renton

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.

The applicant, a volunteer with the respondent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She claimed she was treated unfairly by a coordinator who failed to notify her of event cancellations, denied her travel expenses, and mistreated her.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant alleged differential and unfair treatment, she failed to establish any link between the treatment and her disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a parallel proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal found that while there was some overlap between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application, the overlap only pertained to a portion of the allegations.

Given the unknown timeframe for the WSIB appeal and the fact that the human rights application was already scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal declined to defer the application at this time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status, claiming she was terminated during her pregnancy leave when her employer was sold.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the names of the respondents and add new corporate entities.

The Tribunal reviewed corporate search records and submissions, ordering that the original employer remain a respondent, adding the holding company and the purchaser as respondents, but declining to add an unrelated parent company.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant's union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1483, filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The respondent supported the request, noting the application raised allegations against the union president.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and the potential remedies could impact the union's interests.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

The applicant failed to comply with the final direction.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour, specifically that he was subjected to a racial slur by an employee of the respondent while servicing his home.

The respondent argued that the application falls under federal jurisdiction.

Relying on a previous Tribunal decision involving the same respondent, the Tribunal found that the respondent's operations, including the provision of services by its employees, fall within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Toronto Police Department and several officers based on race, place of origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations pre-dating May 2011 were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also concluded that the remaining timely allegations, which involved traffic stops, police presence in the applicant's neighbourhood, and interactions at police stations, had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to establish a link between the police conduct and his Code-protected characteristics.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, as well as a concurrent complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) based on the same facts.

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

The respondent supported the deferral, while the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application to prevent concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting the applicant could request to reactivate the application after the ESA process concluded.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance regarding the same facts, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the concurrent grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay and financial hardship, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues, and the grievance arbitrator's jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

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

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant had recently been criminally charged with fraud relating to his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and subsequently ordered the deferral of the proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal matter to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and to protect the applicant's right to remain silent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to rely on additional documentation at the rescheduled hearing, as the applicant did not allege any prejudice from the late disclosure.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred because the applicant had filed a grievance about his termination under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application for a six-month period to allow the grievance process to proceed.

The applicant, a lube technician with kidney stones, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and reprisal after he was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant leaving work early without management approval, excessive absenteeism, and poor workmanship, culminating in insubordination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded the discipline and termination were not related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal held the respondent did not fail in its duty to accommodate, as the applicant was disciplined for failing to follow the proper departure protocol, not for his medical condition.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior arbitration award had already dealt with the applicant's accommodation allegations for the fall 2010 semester.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations, as the arbitrator had concluded the applicant did not have a disability requiring accommodation during that period.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant could not rely on allegations from that period to establish a Code violation, leaving the admissibility of such evidence for context to the merits adjudicator.

The applicant, who suffers from Lupus, alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

She claimed she was subjected to harassing comments, denied accommodation, and terminated because of her disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of harassing comments and failure to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability and related absenteeism were factors in the respondent's decision to terminate her during a restructuring process.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages.

The union filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, as potential remedies could impact the union's interests.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, which the Tribunal dismissed during a case management teleconference because eviction proceedings had not commenced and no medical documentation was filed.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure obligations, declining to dismiss the application and allowing a late-filed medical document subject to further submissions on prejudice at the hearing.

The Tribunal noted no evidence of witness interference by the respondent and directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed requests for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her 11 human rights applications after she failed to participate in a summary hearing.

She argued that she had to attend the hospital emergency department on the day of the hearing and provided a medical note.

The Tribunal found the medical note insufficient as it did not explain why she was unable to participate or indicate she was incapacitated.

Given the applicant's history of failing to comply with Tribunal directions regarding her prior adjournment requests, the Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to disability in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the suitability of accommodated work.

Finding significant overlap between the issues before the Tribunal and the WSIB, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the WSIB return-to-work services and the next level of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her termination.

The termination was also the subject of a concurrent grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondents supported it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts, human rights issues, and remedies sought in both proceedings.

To ensure the orderly administration of justice and avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.