Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by opposing counsel in a civil litigation proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over the conduct of opposing counsel.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that there is no service relationship between a party and opposing counsel under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities based on sexual orientation and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, asking the parties for submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.

Both parties submitted that the Application should not be deferred.

The Tribunal agreed and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant, a sous chef, alleged discrimination and reprisal against his former employer, a restaurant.

He claimed a co-worker made racist comments ("go back to your own country" and a racial slur) and that the owner failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.

Two shifts after reporting the incident and threatening to go to the labour board, the applicant was terminated.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's comments were discriminatory, the employer's investigation was flawed and lacked neutrality, and the termination was at least in part a reprisal for the applicant asserting his human rights.

The Tribunal awarded $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages, and ordered public interest remedies including policy development and human rights training.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, goods, services, and facilities based on colour and place of origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After being granted an extension to file submissions, the applicant failed to do so or communicate further with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant's representative indicated the applicant could not attend the hearing due to medical issues, but failed to submit a formal adjournment request with medical documentation as directed by the Tribunal.

The applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application following the conclusion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

She also requested an order for the production of documents, an in-person preliminary hearing, and permission for a union president to attend her hearings.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application but denied the requests for an in-person hearing and early production of documents, finding the latter premature.

The Tribunal noted that its hearings are open to the public, allowing the union president to attend the telephone conference call.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him in employment on the basis of sexual orientation by failing to respond to his communications and failing to provide scenic training.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's alleged failure to act or provide training to his sexual orientation.

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

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application, claiming a grievance had been filed with the union.

The applicant disputed this, stating no grievance was filed and she lacked union support to do so.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application as no grievance existed.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled the matter for mediation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing through an associate, citing a need for more time to review materials and lack of computer access.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant had received the materials months prior.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, especially given the ample time the applicant had to prepare.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that she did not want the union to raise human rights issues in her grievances.

The Tribunal found that the grievances raised similar facts and human rights issues, and that the union had carriage of the grievances.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that found them liable for refusing to allow a service animal into their restaurant and terminating an employee.

They claimed they did not receive notice of the proceedings due to mail delivery issues after moving to a new community.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence regarding the mail delivery issues and their delay in filing the request to be inconsistent, misleading, and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to prove they did not receive notice through no fault of their own, and that their request was untimely without a good faith explanation.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a concurrent grievance under her collective agreement raising the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

Finding that the issues in the grievance and the application were identical and that the grievance had been referred to arbitration, the Tribunal deferred the application for six months pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw her application against her union, UNIFOR, and a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application against her employer.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed Request to Withdraw, removing UNIFOR as a respondent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to re-activate the application, finding that the withdrawal against the union had no bearing on the ongoing grievance arbitration process.

The application remains deferred until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance on the same issues.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process, while the union opposed deferral on the basis that the grievance was in abeyance until the applicant returned to work.

The Tribunal found that the issues in both proceedings were identical and that the applicant had indicated a preference for deferral in her application.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred for six months, after which the applicant must provide an update on the grievance status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on citizenship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and lacked a connection to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had an outstanding civil proceeding against it alleging constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, as the court's determination on the constructive dismissal issue would impact the human rights proceedings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned for failing to comply with disclosure obligations.

The applicant provided evidence that he had delivered his materials to the respondent and attempted to fax them to the Tribunal before the deadline, though the fax transmission failed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's actions demonstrated he did not intend to abandon his application.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and new hearing dates and disclosure directions were ordered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being denied several positions with the respondent.

The respondent argued that a prior settlement agreement and release barred the applicant from raising allegations about job competitions that pre-dated the settlement.

The Tribunal held that the release barred the applicant from pursuing allegations about positions that pre-dated the execution of the settlement.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with allegations regarding two positions that post-dated the settlement, but was prohibited from challenging the reasons for his 2012 termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant failed to comply with disclosure obligations and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant did not comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application alleging disability discrimination, following the resolution of a related policy grievance.

The respondents opposed, noting that an individual grievance raising the same accommodation issues remained outstanding and was proceeding through the grievance steps.

The Tribunal found that given the parallel issues, the application should continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of the individual grievance or arbitration process.