Alison Renton

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed approximately 29 disputes under the collective agreement raising the same issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, claiming she was demoted and terminated after taking two maternity leaves.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that both proceedings pertained to the applicant's termination and would require similar factual findings.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting missing information and jurisdictional defects, and directed the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to provide the missing information, make submissions, or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

She also filed grievances with her union regarding the same allegations.

The applicant requested a deferral of her human rights application pending the resolution of the grievance process, and the respondents consented.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is appropriate where concurrent proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on a record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application, noting that the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or describe how the respondents' behaviour related to the alleged ground.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on jurisdiction but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, who has a developmental disability, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of an ongoing discriminatory wage differential as out of time.

The Tribunal previously found that the ongoing practice of paying her less than non-disabled employees was not a continuing contravention under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that the ongoing wage differential constituted a series of incidents, making the allegations timely.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration and directed further proceedings to determine the merits and potential remedy.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and sex after he was not hired for an accounting manager position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, including being asked his graduation year during an interview, did not establish a link to the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming she was demoted and had payroll duties removed after returning from a pregnancy-related hospitalization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was filed 10 days late and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the law and the stress of a new baby were insufficient to justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against the WSIB and its service provider regarding his labour market re-entry program.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent and dismissed most of the allegations against the corporate respondents, including reprisal and general unfairness.

However, the Tribunal permitted the allegations concerning a delay in providing disability accommodation and a threat related to family status to continue.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, age, and association with respect to housing accommodation after being denied the opportunity to view rental apartments without an appointment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence, if accepted as true, could arguably give rise to an inference of discrimination.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry and age, claiming that during a job interview, the respondent's representatives made derogatory comments about his age and Jewish ancestry.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding who made the alleged comments to be highly inconsistent and unreliable, failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring the applicant, specifically his unkempt appearance and refusal to provide references.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent acted reasonably in investigating the applicant's subsequent email complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on origin and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which was granted.

The respondents subsequently requested to reschedule the hearing and provided alternate dates.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her availability for the alternate dates.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications and directions from the Tribunal, including a warning that the application could be dismissed, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a 90-year-old tenant, alleged discrimination on the basis of age after the respondent landlord delivered eviction notices addressed to her son (the leaseholder) directly to her rental unit.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that while the method of delivering the notices may have been unfair and caused anxiety, the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's conduct to her age.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, record of offences, and reprisal.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace accident, a disciplinary letter, and layoffs and recalls either did not amount to a Code violation, were untimely, or lacked any evidence connecting the events to a prohibited ground.

The Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status because his employer required a two-year waiting period before his common-law partner could be added to his group benefits, a requirement not imposed on married employees.

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

The Tribunal concluded that section 25(2) of the Human Rights Code, read with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and O. Reg. 286/01, explicitly permits differentiation in health benefit plans based on marital status when providing benefits for an employee's spouse.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing personal and family medical issues, including acting as a caregiver for family members and experiencing physical and mental health issues.

The applicant had also failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation or establish extraordinary circumstances to justify the delay.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and the applicant was barred from calling witnesses or relying on documents due to his failure to disclose.

The applicant, a single mother of three, alleged she was denied entry to the respondent's women's clothing store because of her family status, claiming the store owner told her she had "too many children" and that a child had recently stolen from the store.

The respondent denied making these comments, asserting the store was temporarily closed so the owner, who worked alone and had a medical condition, could use the washroom.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility of both parties, noting the lack of corroborating witnesses.

Finding the respondent's explanation reasonable and the applicant's version improbable given the store's customer base, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

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

After failing to respond to Tribunal communications, failing to comply with disclosure obligations, and failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding the disclosure of documents and witness lists, and exhibited disrespectful conduct during the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent's actions constituted an abuse of process and ordered that she be barred from presenting any documents or calling any witnesses for the remainder of the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the applicant had already filed a second application containing the same allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to allow the amendment, as it would require recalling witnesses and filing an amended response, and the allegations were already being addressed in the second application.