Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming he was terminated in October 2008 and subsequently denied severance pay.

The application was filed in July 2011, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to ongoing attempts to negotiate a severance package through his union and a paralegal.

The Tribunal found that settlement discussions do not constitute a valid explanation for delay and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant, a sous chef, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on multiple grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Tribunal found that the applicant's 2008 allegations were untimely, as they occurred more than a year before the next incident and no good faith reason for the delay was provided.

Second, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend his application to include new allegations, finding it would be unfair to the respondent at this stage of the proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal made directions regarding the admissibility of evidence from several proposed witnesses.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the outcome of a related union grievance.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate the application, stating that her grievance had been withdrawn by the union and did not proceed to arbitration.

As the grievance procedure was completed and no response was filed by the respondent or the union, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the respondent to file its response.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to significantly amend the Application to include additional alleged breaches and new remedies.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that allowing the amendments so close to the hearing would be unfair to the respondent, would require another adjournment, and that the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking the amendments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB on various grounds, claiming that WSIB employees failed to provide him with copies of their oaths of office.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that it is not its role to determine whether WSIB employees must execute oaths of office.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent college breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The settlement required the respondent to post human rights posters in visible areas and consider the applicant's suggested locations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to post the posters within a reasonable time and failed to consider the applicant's suggested locations or notify her of the outcome.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,500 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant filed 11 human rights applications against various respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a consolidated summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide the request and medical documentation to all respondents.

The adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to call into the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed all applications as abandoned, emphasizing the obligation of parties to respect the Tribunal's process and comply with its rules.

The respondent union requested that the Tribunal reconsider its interim decision to convert a teleconference summary hearing to an in-person hearing to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions, not interim decisions.

The Tribunal maintained its direction that the summary hearing proceed in-person for the applicant, with the respondents having the option to participate by teleconference or in-person.

The applicant requested to amend her Application to seek different remedies, including $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, a letter of assurance, and a public interest remedy.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments pursuant to Rule 1.7(c) of the Rules of Procedure.

Additionally, the applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a response if they objected to the union's intervention, with the issue to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming she was forced to resign under duress.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the delay issue.

When the applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age against the insurance company that administered his federally-regulated employer's self-insured disability plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds.

First, the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Second, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent merely administered a self-insured plan for Canada Post, a federally-regulated undertaking, meaning the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of family status, marital status, and reprisal, following her termination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had heard evidence and rendered decisions on the same facts and issues, including the applicant's concerns about overtime and her termination.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal concluded the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The underlying application alleged discrimination based on an article published in a student magazine.

The applicant argued the summary hearing process was unfair, the adjudicator made errors of law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act should have paramountcy over the provincial Code.

The Tribunal found no new facts, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors warranting reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a parent with multiple sclerosis, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to provide bussing for her children.

The children did not qualify for bussing under the respondent's neutral transportation policy due to their age and the proximity of their home to the school.

The Tribunal found no direct discrimination, as the policy was applied neutrally and disability was not a factor in the decision.

The Tribunal also found no constructive discrimination, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the lack of bussing adversely impacted her because of her disability, given that other transportation options were available and her ability to get her children ready for school was not materially affected.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of long-term disability benefits.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing without explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by his housing provider.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the accommodation of his disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to point to any new facts or evidence that were not available before the summary hearing, and that his arguments were essentially a repetition of those already advanced and considered.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the parties had previously signed a memorandum of agreement containing a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the agreement under economic duress and because her union advised her that her termination would be reported to the College of Nurses, jeopardizing her license.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the legal elements of duress, as the alleged pressure was not illegitimate and did not amount to a coercion of will.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The first application alleged the landlord discriminated by changing the rent payment date to the first of the month, which caused the applicant, an ODSP recipient, to fall into arrears.

The second application alleged reprisal after the landlord, accompanied by police, returned the applicant's personal bulletin board.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the landlord's actions did not amount to discrimination or reprisal under the Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment to delay the start time of a scheduled hearing due to her counsel's scheduling conflict with another proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing had already been rescheduled once and the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction for late adjournment requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer regarding his termination, benefits, and alleged wage siphoning.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege facts that would constitute a reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the remaining allegations regarding wage siphoning and return to work issues were barred by issue estoppel, as they had been previously dismissed in a 2009 final decision involving the same parties.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.