Alison Renton

The applicant sought to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada regarding a Social Benefits Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application as the other proceedings had concluded.

The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or the doctrine of issue estoppel, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin after he was denied an interview for a mathematics teacher position at an all-boys school.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that could establish a link between his place of origin or ethnic origin and the respondent's decision not to interview him.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate or have applications heard together, which the Tribunal treated as a request to amend her human rights application.

The applicant sought to add new allegations regarding shift scheduling and the ground of marital status.

Applying the factors from Wozenilek, the Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the hearing was not yet scheduled, the allegations were not untimely, and there was sufficient detail for the respondents to respond.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing stress, the need to retain counsel, and her father's ill health.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the desire to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled and the current state of her father's health did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed human rights applications against two union officials, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay and/or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to March 2008 were untimely as there was a gap of more than one year between incidents, breaking any series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to establish a link between the respondents' conduct and any prohibited ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to include an unspecified financial remedy and requesting an extension of time to file her Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the application because the applicant failed to identify the specific financial remedy sought, but noted she could file another request with the required information.

The extension of time for the Reply had already been granted.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applicant's human rights application pending the resolution of a related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the WSIB proceeding was at an internal appeal stage and would not address all the issues raised in the human rights application, such as failure to accommodate and harassment prior to his layoff.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the lack of complete overlap in issues and the early stage of the WSIB proceeding favoured proceeding with the application.

The Tribunal declined to defer the matter and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after his employer learned he smoked marijuana, to which he claimed addiction.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing the termination was for performance issues and they had no knowledge of any disability.

The Tribunal found that given the timing of the termination relative to the employer learning of the marijuana use, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and could proceed.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for his actions.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal, raising essentially the same allegations as a previous application that had been dismissed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the second application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that permitting the applicant to re-litigate the same allegations in a second application would violate the principles of judicial economy, consistency, and finality, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual solicitation and race by a co-worker, and a failure to investigate by the employer.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the applicant's allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding an incident on September 21, 2011, and the related failure to investigate claim, to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a driver/mover, suffered a workplace injury and was subsequently denied modified duties by the respondent employer.

The respondent argued that it was a federally regulated undertaking and that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove it was federally regulated and that the application was timely because a de facto termination occurred within one year of filing.

On the merits, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed to meet both the procedural and substantive components of its duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and its management was directed to complete human rights training.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance and arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The applicant's union did not oppose the deferral, but the applicant objected because a mediation had failed and he disliked the settlement position advanced.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add Carolyn Krebs as a personal respondent, noting she was the legal name of the property manager who previously identified as Marian Linton.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents' failure to comply with previous directions to produce corporate documents and photo identification, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether this conduct amounts to an abuse of process.

The applicant, a police officer, sought to amend her human rights application against the police services board and the police association to include detailed allegations of sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal, and to add a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments, including those relating to disability, reprisal, and failure to investigate, but denied amendments that substantially changed the nature of the original application, such as adding the personal respondent for historical sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal also directed a summary hearing to determine if the allegations against the police association and certain other allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

After multiple scheduling issues, missed deadlines, and denied adjournment requests, a hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2012.

Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned and for abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal rules and directions, and the unexcused failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a 17-year-old who had withdrawn from parental control, filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on age.

During the hearing, confusion arose regarding the identity of the personal respondent, who appeared to use multiple names including Carolyn Krebs and Marian Linton.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce articles of incorporation and photo identification to clarify her identity.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose redacted case notes from her former youth support worker, limited to information pertaining to her housing situation.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues including document production and timeliness.

The Tribunal declined to order the respondent to create new statistical documents regarding new hires and transfers, but ordered the respondent to produce existing information if available.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of the applicant's medical records held by the respondent's health care centre, finding them arguably relevant, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The issue of timeliness of certain allegations was deferred to the hearing.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing delays and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, sexual orientation, and family status.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a related grievance process.

After receiving updates from the parties confirming that the grievance arbitration was scheduled for January 2013, and with no objections filed, the Tribunal ordered the continued deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding reprisal as a ground, changing the date of the last incident, and clarifying the remedies sought.

The respondent did not oppose the amendments.

Applying the factors for amending pleadings, the Tribunal granted the request, noting the lack of opposition and that the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.