Alison Renton

In an interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce a sound recording and personal notes over which he had claimed privilege.

The Tribunal found that the sound recording was not privileged merely because it would reveal a witness's identity, and ordered the production of relevant portions of the applicant's personal journal, with permission to redact unrelated personal information.

The applicant was warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Provincial Police, which was previously deferred pending the completion of a public complaints process before the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate the application, consolidate it with a new application, and add the Attorney General as a party.

The Tribunal denied the requests to consolidate and add a party.

Regarding the request to re-activate, the respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with by the OCPC.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the s. 45.1 issue before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin and ethnic origin regarding an article published in a student magazine at Algonquin College.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that a magazine article is not a service or a 'notice, sign, symbol or other similar representation' under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Code, and is protected by freedom of expression under section 13(2).

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success for the allegation that the respondent failed to investigate the complaint based on a protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and his union.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union because the applicant made no allegations against it on the basis of a protected ground.

Noting that the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the application was timely or how the delay was incurred in good faith.

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene.

The respondents did not oppose the request, and the applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit, and that collective agreement language may be applicable to the applicant's situation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities against the Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federal entity outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant's response did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, confirming that the Human Rights Code only applies to matters within provincial jurisdiction.

The union filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application brought by a member of its bargaining unit against the employer.

The Tribunal noted that a union nearly always has an interest in such applications, particularly where collective agreement language is at issue.

The Request to Intervene was granted and the union was added as an intervenor.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a civil action.

Following a judgment in her favour in Small Claims Court, the applicant requested to proceed with her application.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code applies, given the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's arguably relevant documents, over which the applicant claimed privilege without providing reasons.

The applicant expressed fear that disclosing documents or naming witnesses would lead to intimidation by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to deliver a description of the privilege asserted over each item, in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and set out a process for the respondent to challenge the privilege claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, which were previously consolidated.

The Tribunal noted that one of the personal respondents had not filed a Response or confirmed adoption of the corporate respondent's Response, despite a previous interim decision directing him to do so within 35 days.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final five days to file a Response or confirm adoption of the existing Response, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time and a copy of a tape recording from a Tribunal mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request for the tape recording, noting that mediations are not normally recorded.

The request for an extension of time was also denied, as the Tribunal found the applicant had sufficient notice of the hearing date despite an initial administrative error in delivering the hearing notice.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the applicant's union to clarify whether it intended to represent the applicant at the hearing or attend as an affected party, and to file a Request to Intervene if the latter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding her placement on a social housing waiting list.

She subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the City of Toronto as a respondent.

The City opposed the request, arguing there were no allegations it directly discriminated against the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that under the Social Housing Reform Act, the City is the service manager and decisions of the housing provider are deemed to be decisions of the City, meaning the allegations could support a finding that the City violated the Code.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an 88-year-old man with a mobility disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

He requested permission to park his motorized scooter in his condominium parking spot and asked the condominium corporation to install automatic doors between the garage and elevators.

The respondents failed to respond to the application and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant in a timely manner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to jointly pay a $5,000 donation to the March of Dimes, amend the condominium by-laws to permit mobility devices in the parking garage, and complete human rights training.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that her medical condition, including depression and the effects of a head injury, contributed to her delay in filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue evidence already considered in the original decision, which had concluded her medical documentation did not demonstrate her disability prevented her from pursuing her legal rights.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

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

The Tribunal previously granted a request to expedite the hearing and scheduled it for September 2011.

The respondent's representative immediately advised the Tribunal of a scheduling conflict for those dates.

The Tribunal cancelled the September hearing dates and directed that a revised notice of hearing be issued for alternative dates in October or November.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, Ford, and his benefits provider, Great West Life, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the claims against Ford appeared to be barred by issue estoppel from a 2009 Tribunal decision, and the claims against Great West Life lacked a connection to any Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Great West Life for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to advise whether he wanted an oral hearing regarding the issue estoppel question for the claims against Ford.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay him for weekends and Labour Day during a paid leave of absence.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the six-month limitation period and that there was no breach.

The Tribunal found the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith due to a debilitating medical condition.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding that under the teachers' collective agreement and the Education Act, the applicant was only entitled to be paid for school days, which exclude weekends and statutory holidays.

As the applicant was paid for the 11 school days during the leave period, there was no breach of the settlement.