Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment following a workplace injury and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and declined to defer the application, finding that the grievance had only recently been referred to arbitration after two years and the WSIB proceedings did not impact the central issue of whether the termination violated the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the denial of long-term disability benefits and failure to accommodate her return to work.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine its jurisdiction over the various respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Assure, Telus, and Emergis as there were no allegations against them falling under the Code.

The application against the employer, OSI, was dismissed because the employment relationship was based in Nova Scotia and lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario.

However, the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the insurer, GWL, as the allegations related to its interpretation and administration of an insurance policy in Ontario, and allowed the application against GWL to proceed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against the corporate respondent and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction seeking submissions on consolidating the applications.

Finding common issues of fact and law and no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The Tribunal also corrected an administrative error by confirming Jim Lishman as a personal respondent and granting him 35 days to file a response.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against her former employer, the Ottawa Police Service (OPS), and her current employer, the Peel Regional Police Services Board, as well as their respective police associations.

The OPS and the Ottawa Police Association requested that the application against them be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the Ottawa respondents did not constitute a 'series of incidents' connecting them to the Peel respondents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her delay in filing against the Ottawa respondents was incurred in good faith, noting she had previously sought legal advice and raised concerns internally.

The application was dismissed as against the OPS and the Ottawa Police Association.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's medical documents and his consent to release records held by a third-party disability management company.

The self-represented applicant objected, citing privacy concerns and a desire to obtain legal advice.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claims of discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had sufficient time to retain counsel and that his privacy concerns could be addressed through redactions of family members' information.

The respondent union filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's medical, university, and financial records.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the issues of disability, mitigation, and wage loss, and ordered the applicant to produce them immediately.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing difficulties in retaining legal counsel, conflicts with university studies and a mandatory work placement, and childcare challenges.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that a previous adjournment had been granted on similar grounds and made peremptory on the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant had sufficient notice of the hearing dates to make arrangements and that the inability to retain counsel or lack of knowledge regarding document disclosure were not valid bases for an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent hospital failed to return her to work following a motor vehicle accident.

The application was filed up to nine years after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued that her delay was incurred in good faith due to depression and cognitive difficulties.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable medical explanation for the delay, particularly given that she had actively pursued and settled related civil litigation during the same period.

The respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld two human rights applications.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, misconstrued evidence, and demonstrated bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was filed outside the 30-day limit without adequate justification, and that the respondent was improperly attempting to re-argue its case and repair deficiencies in its presentation.

The Tribunal also found the allegation of bias did not meet the required legal test.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and alleging the applicant failed to meet disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the application contained sufficient details for the respondents to prepare for the hearing.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately deliver and file her list of documents, copies of documents, and list of witnesses with summaries of anticipated evidence, to the extent she had not already done so.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The applicant was directed to immediately deliver and file his witness statements as required by Rule 17.

The parties were also invited to notify the Tribunal if they were interested in mediation-adjudication services.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex in employment, following her termination and a subsequent unsuccessful union grievance arbitration.

The respondents requested early dismissal due to delay and because the issues were already addressed at arbitration.

The Tribunal found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant's medical evidence did not establish a good faith reason for the delay.

The Tribunal also found that the termination allegations were appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by an Employment Standards officer (ESO).

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint constituted another proceeding, the ESO's decision lacked sufficient analysis and did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application, particularly regarding the timing of the pregnancy disclosure and the reprisal allegations.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a parent with a mobility disability, alleged discrimination because the respondent school board refused to provide bus transportation for her children, who lived too close to the school to qualify under the standard policy.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that transportation is a service provided to students, not parents, and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that a service relationship exists between the school board and parents regarding transportation, noting the board's own policies contemplate parental requests for special transportation.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's jurisdictional objection and directed the applicant to provide submissions on how the policy adversely impacted her, given her husband already drove the children to school.

The applicant, a waitress, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and reprisal after her employer reduced her shifts and hours, and subsequently terminated her employment when she was eight months pregnant.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the reduction in hours and termination were due to the applicant's pregnancy, and that she was subjected to reprisal for objecting to the changes.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent's management to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal regarding her wages and subsequent termination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues had already been decided in an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the Employment Standards Officer had substantively addressed the allegations of discrimination and reprisal in dismissing the ESA claim.

Concluding that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the human rights application.

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

Following the applicant's failure to comply with an interim order to produce relevant medical documentation, the Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the non-compliance and potential consequences.

The applicant failed to attend the conference call hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy to reinstate her benefits package and to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the Request for an Interim Remedy because the applicant failed to provide a proper declaration detailing the facts upon which she relied.

The Tribunal also denied the Request to Expedite Proceedings because the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application after he failed to attend a scheduled conference call hearing.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence, but merely reiterated previous positions and resubmitted documentation already provided to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found no basis to reconsider the decision and denied the request.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the human rights application raised issues beyond those before WSIAT and that a deferral would cause undue delay.

The Tribunal found that while there was an overlap of facts and issues, it was not appropriate to defer the application indefinitely because no hearing date had yet been set by WSIAT.

The request to defer was denied, with leave to revisit the issue once a WSIAT hearing date is scheduled.