Alison Renton

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to public transportation because of citizenship and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the application appeared to lack a specific act of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or explain how the alleged reprisal related to the assertion of human rights under the Code.

The applicant's allegations of reprisal stemmed from his refusal to support a personal respondent's leadership application, not from claiming a Code right.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The applicant brought a human rights application on behalf of her husband, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal related to his arrest and incarceration.

The application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

After the criminal charges were stayed, the applicant requested to re-activate the application.

The respondents did not oppose re-activation but requested a new Form 4 to confirm the husband's continued consent.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate and declined to order a new Form 4, finding no evidence that the husband no longer supported the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a request for a non-monetary remedy, specifically reinstatement to an accommodated position.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

Applying the factors from Wozenilek, the Tribunal allowed the amendment, noting it raised no new facts, was made well in advance of the hearing, and was unopposed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial and creed profiling by the respondent while he was in the East Detention Centre.

The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the application until the end of related criminal proceedings against him.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that deferral ensures proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being granted an extension and receiving an Interim Decision warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

The applicant was directed to submit additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions.

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

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

The applicant alleged that a new production manager unfairly raised performance issues with him, which he assumed was due to his age and his identity as the only Native American in the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were based on mere speculation and belief, with no evidence linking the manager's actions to any Code grounds.

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

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had sent her application via Canada Post Xpresspost prior to the deadline, but it was received by the Tribunal after the one-year anniversary of the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that because the deadline fell on a Saturday and the following Monday was a statutory holiday, the time limit was extended to the next business day under the Legislation Act, 2006.

Consequently, the application was filed in a timely manner.

Alternatively, the Tribunal held that any delay was incurred in good faith and caused no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file a grievance regarding his termination and other employment issues after he disclosed his drug use.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the union's failure to act was based on discriminatory factors, as a union's failure to pursue a grievance is not in itself a breach of the Code without a factual foundation linking it to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent company was subject to CCAA proceedings, and the applicant had filed a dispute with the Claims Adjudication Officer appointed by the court, which included allegations of Code violations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the Claims Adjudication Officer's proceeding, given its advanced stage and the overlapping issues.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The applicant was permitted to amend her requested remedies to include mental distress damages.

The Tribunal ruled that two letters in the respondents' productions were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Because the applicant put her medical condition in issue by claiming mental distress, the Tribunal ordered her to produce medical documentation from July 2006 to the end of the period for which she sought damages.

In an ongoing expedited hearing regarding alleged discrimination in housing accommodation based on environmental sensitivities, the self-represented applicant sought to call a late witness.

The respondents objected, citing lack of particulars and prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the witness statement was vague, lacked supporting documentation, and would cause procedural unfairness and prejudice to the respondents by unduly lengthening the hearing and introducing potentially irrelevant similar fact evidence.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove Jeffery Kerslake as a personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that Kerslake was only identified as a Vice President of the corporate respondent with no specific allegations against him, and applied the established principles for removing personal respondents where a corporate respondent is present.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because her representative had a conflicting court date.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the parties had over five months' notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the unavailability of a representative does not justify an adjournment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application as untimely, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to consider the timeliness issue before proceeding to mediation.

The scheduled mediation was cancelled, and the applicant was directed to file submissions explaining any good faith reasons for the delay.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to record the hearing to accommodate her learning disability.

The respondents objected and alternatively sought restrictions on the recording's use.

The respondents also requested that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to record the hearing using the Tribunal's equipment, subject to strict confidentiality and usage restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated with respect to liability and the public interest remedies sought by the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the allegations had been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider her evidence, violated procedural fairness by proceeding in writing, and failed to provide reasonable notice.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not provide new evidence, had been given the option to proceed orally but chose to proceed in writing, and failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedures.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment by her employer and failure to investigate by her union between 2004 and 2007, as well as a harassing voicemail received in February 2009.

The respondents requested dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found that the gap of more than one year between 2007 and 2009 disrupted any 'series of incidents.' Furthermore, the applicant's medical evidence did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application in a timely manner, given her participation in other complex activities during that period.

The 2004-2007 allegations against both respondents were dismissed as untimely.

However, the timely 2009 voicemail allegation against the employer was permitted to proceed.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, the respondents requested production of the applicant's income documentation.

The applicant claimed special damages of $57,005 for lost wages, asserting an inability to work since her termination.

During cross-examination, evidence emerged of potential income from volunteer honourariums, cleaning services, and Ontario Works.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the assessment of special damages and the applicant's claimed inability to work, and ordered their production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services.

He subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a 45-day extension to file a proper Reply, citing his college schedule and the need to consult a lawyer.

The respondents objected, arguing the applicant had already filed a Reply and citing prejudice to the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the 45-day extension, noting the circumstances and dates of the allegations, and directed the matter to mediation.