Alison Renton

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnicity and union activities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also commenced a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board based on similar allegations of unfair dismissal.

As neither party filed submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a continuing education teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

He claimed he received lower pay and no benefits compared to teachers teaching the same courses to younger students.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination related to the applicant's own age.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were based on the ages of the students taught, not the applicant's age, and thus fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin, claiming he was dismissed due to his ethnicity and union activities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also commenced a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board based on similar allegations.

As neither party filed submissions in response to the Notice, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her Application to include new allegations regarding the respondent's failure to continue benefits during an unpaid leave and its application of the leave of absence policy.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce a list of employees who were on unpaid medical leave without adjusted service dates.

Furthermore, applying the threshold of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical documentation and correspondence provided to the respondent's third-party disability management company, as these documents were relevant to her allegations of disability discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the Regional Municipality of Peel regarding the calculation of her shelter allowance.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the Social Benefits Tribunal had already dealt with the substance of the Application.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had commenced appeals to the Divisional Court regarding the SBT proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the Application on its own initiative pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The respondent company was under CCAA protection, which stayed the proceedings.

The applicant requested that the application proceed, noting his claim under the CCAA proceedings had been disallowed by the Monitor.

The Tribunal directed the respondent company to provide updated information regarding its CCAA proceedings and to file submissions on whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

The respondents subsequently declared bankruptcy, raising the issue of whether the application was stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal held that because the applicant was seeking only declaratory relief and no monetary remedies, the claim was not provable in bankruptcy and the stay did not apply.

The application was permitted to continue and the respondents were directed to file a Response.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay $1,500 as required by minutes of settlement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondent admitted the breach but cited health and financial issues as reasons for non-payment.

The Tribunal found the respondent in fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding $1,500 settlement amount, plus $500 in damages as a remedy for the contravention, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, specifically that the respondent taxi company refused to issue him a letter of employment.

The last incident occurred in May 2009, but the application was not filed until November 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant attributed the delay to his attempts to address concerns with the City of Brampton, which was not named as a respondent.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing against the respondents and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a new human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, objecting to the respondent school board's requirement for a pastoral reference and Catholic identification.

The Tribunal noted that a previous application by the applicant raising essentially the same allegations was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the new application should not be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, issue estoppel, or delay.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement of an earlier human rights complaint.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the Application.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the Application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent Organizational Solutions failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response by April 19, 2011, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the matter was settled by minutes of settlement in a related small claims court action.

A conference call hearing was scheduled.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment citing medical reasons, providing a doctor's note that was over a month old and did not state he was unable to participate.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment.

When the applicant failed to participate in the scheduled conference call hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, disability, creed, age, and receipt of social assistance, stemming from a recalculation of his rent.

The respondents requested a summary dismissal, arguing the rent was recalculated in accordance with the Social Housing Reform Act after the applicant failed to report an increase in his income.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant's allegations were based on unsupported assumptions and offensive assertions, with no link to Code grounds.

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

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached paragraph 3 of a Memorandum of Settlement.

At the hearing, the applicant attempted to raise new concerns regarding paragraphs 2 and 4.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not raise these new concerns because they were raised 19 to 20 months beyond the six-month limitation period under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's Request for Order During Proceedings for production of documents, finding them irrelevant to the alleged breach of paragraph 3.

The applicant objected to the admissibility of three audio tape cassettes, arguing they were disclosed during a confidential mediation and were irrelevant.

The respondents argued the tapes were relevant and referenced in the applicant's Reply.

The Tribunal found that two of the tapes were admissible because the applicant's Reply referenced 'other taped conversations', making their existence relevant despite being disclosed at mediation.

The third tape was ruled inadmissible as it pertained to a conversation months after the applicant's resignation and was irrelevant.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the respondent's three-day delay in mailing settlement monies was a de minimis breach of settlement not warranting a remedy.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary matters.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, deferred the applicant's request to amend her application to the commencement of the hearing, and adjusted the hearing schedule on consent to accommodate the testimony of the applicant's medical expert.

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

After sending an email indicating she might not want to proceed, the Tribunal directed her to either file a Form 9 to withdraw or confirm her intention to continue.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response and was deemed to have waived its right to participate.

An employee of the respondent subsequently wrote to the Tribunal explaining that the owner had limited English and poor eyesight, and had mistaken the Tribunal's correspondence for junk mail.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondent five days to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, failing which the matter would proceed without its participation.