Alison Renton

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled continuation of the hearing, stating only that she was unavailable for the dates.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that its Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for adjournments, even on consent, and the applicant provided no such circumstances.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to operate an insurance brokerage without two contracted markets.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions that dispose of central issues, whereas the interim decision was not final.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached minutes of settlement by failing to mail settlement monies by the agreed-upon date.

The Tribunal found that the respondent mailed the payment three days late.

However, the Tribunal concluded that this minor delay constituted a de minimis breach of the settlement.

The application was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin and disability in medical services, claiming the respondent physician refused to treat her, incorrectly completed disability forms, and made discriminatory comments about fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding conflicting positions that raised credibility issues regarding the termination of the doctor-patient relationship, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the matter to mediation.

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

The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions and agreed to a monetary payment of $1,200 in exchange for a full release.

The applicant signed the release, but later attempted to resile from the settlement because the respondents did not provide the settlement funds by a unilaterally imposed deadline.

The Tribunal found that the parties had reached a binding settlement under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The timing of the payment was not a negotiated term of the agreement, and the applicant could not void the settlement based on the missed deadline.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability when her collective agreement benefits were terminated.

Over two years later, she sought to amend her application to include an allegation that her employment was also terminated at the same time, claiming she only learned of this during mediation.

The Tribunal ordered a conference call hearing to determine whether the amendment should be permitted under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, specifically whether the delay was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, alleging the respondents breached a settlement agreement.

The respondents argued the application was filed beyond the six-month time limit and denied any breach.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call hearing to determine whether the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith due to his medical condition, and whether the settlement was breached.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding discipline and the revocation of an employee's license.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to operate an insurance brokerage without the required two contracted insurance markets for up to two years.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy, as it would allow the applicant to bypass established regulatory requirements and create an extraordinary new state of affairs.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the 'Toronto Police Service' as the respondent.

The City of Toronto advised that the Toronto Police Service is not a legal entity.

The applicant requested an order to amend the respondent's name.

The Tribunal granted the request, amending the title of proceedings to include the Toronto Police Services Board, the City of Toronto, and the Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service, and directed that the application be sent to all named respondents for their response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

In a Request for Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought to add his mother and two sisters as applicants.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the allegations pertaining to the family members were outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was originally filed only on behalf of the applicant.

The Tribunal refused to add the mother and sisters as applicants, concluding their allegations did not form part of a series of incidents with the applicant's allegations, were out of time, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also directed that the application continue against a personal respondent who was on pregnancy leave.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, and sex.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondents attended with their witnesses.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify any specific act of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant was given 30 days to file submissions but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response, and a Trustee in Bankruptcy subsequently notified the Tribunal that both the corporate and personal respondents had declared bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act generally stays proceedings against bankrupt respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions within 14 days on whether the application can proceed or is stayed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding two named respondents, the Fire Chief and his superior, as the application contained no specific allegations against them.

The applicant submitted they were responsible as superiors.

The Tribunal found that the application against these individuals did not fall within its jurisdiction as there were no specific allegations of Code violations against them, and ordered them removed as respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondents, a radio station and broadcasting company, appeared to be federally regulated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that both the regulation and content of radio broadcasts fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the matter is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her husband, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a mental health disability.

The complainant returned to work after a layoff but quit during his second shift, allegedly due to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent was aware or ought to have been aware of the complainant's disability at the time he quit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and contracts on various grounds, including reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by the named respondents (union representatives) or link the alleged unfair treatment to Code grounds.

The applicant's response alleged she was fired by a plant manager for filing applications, but the manager and employer were not named as respondents.

Finding no sufficient basis for the alleged Code violations against the named respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour by the Toronto Police Service.

The respondents' counsel notified the Tribunal that the Toronto Police Service was not a properly named party.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's counsel to address the issue of properly naming the respondents, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his former employer, the school board, and his union.

The school board and union argued the application was untimely and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the alleged discrimination by the school board well over a year before filing the application, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the union, as there was no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.