Alison Renton

The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in the areas of housing, goods, services, and facilities.

A hearing was scheduled to determine preliminary issues, including whether the applications should be heard together and whether the Tribunal had the power to hear the applications.

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

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in relation to his return to work and subsequent discipline.

The applicant, a unionized employee, also filed multiple grievances regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the applications pending the resolution of the concurrent grievance proceedings.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both forums, the Tribunal deferred the applications pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in housing against a condominium corporation and its property management company.

Despite multiple notices and interim decisions directing the respondents to file a Response, they failed to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived their right to further notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions on liability and remedy, and to indicate whether he wished to proceed by way of a written or oral hearing.

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

The parties engaged in settlement discussions, and the applicant signed a Full and Final Release.

However, the applicant later returned the settlement cheque, claiming it was not received in a timely manner, and sought to proceed with the application.

The respondents requested early dismissal based on the signed release.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day in-person hearing to determine as a preliminary matter whether the parties reached a binding settlement under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already determined in an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

As section 43(2) of the Code requires the Tribunal to afford parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application, the Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to consider the dismissal request.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging age discrimination in employment.

She argued procedural unfairness, including the Tribunal's failure to adjudicate wrongful dismissal and family status claims, and the admission of un-subpoenaed respondent witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and raise issues not included in her original application.

The applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, over a year after her termination.

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed late and the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued that mental health issues prevented her from filing on time and from understanding the release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions and evidence on whether the application should be dismissed due to the delay and the signed release.

The applicant requested, on consent, to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates and convert one day to a mediation day.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period after the notice of hearing and cited no exceptional circumstances.

However, the Tribunal offered to conduct a mediation-adjudication on the first scheduled hearing day if the parties agreed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, one of the personal respondents, having recently retained separate counsel, requested an adjournment to prepare a defence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period following the notice of hearing and that late retention of counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to immediately comply with their document disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming he was denied entry to a supermarket because he uses a motorized scooter.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to further notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions and indicate whether he wished to attend a hearing to determine liability and remedy.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions on liability and remedy, and to indicate whether she wished to proceed in writing or attend an oral hearing.

The applicant, an administrative assistant, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of age.

She claimed that her supervisors considered her 'too old' and 'too slow', denied her training opportunities, attempted to replace her with younger volunteers, and failed to assist her with long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The evidence demonstrated that the employer's actions, including requesting her date of birth after a job offer and assigning her tasks such as preparing food for meetings, were not discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a male project manager, alleged that he was sexually harassed and solicited by a female subordinate co-worker, and that the respondent employer failed to investigate his complaints.

The applicant withdrew his application against the co-worker after reaching a settlement.

The Tribunal found that it could not make findings against the co-worker as she was no longer a party.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent employer violated the Human Rights Code by failing to reasonably investigate the applicant's written complaints in a timely and neutral manner.

The employer's dismissive response, based on the assumption that a woman could not sexually harass a man, also constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $7,500 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the employer to review its anti-harassment policy and complete human rights training.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, contracts, and goods, services and facilities against her former employer and several insurance and benefits administrators.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the applicant's employment was located in Nova Scotia and the denial of long term disability benefits is a contractual issue for the courts.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a termination compensation package.

The applicant argued he was not in the right frame of mind when he signed the release due to his medications.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Code, the applicant had obtained legal advice before signing, and he provided no medical evidence to substantiate his claim of incapacity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondents, dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, or dismiss parts of it as being beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions addressing the issues of delay, prima facie case, and removal of personal respondents, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her husband was falsely arrested, incarcerated, and denied disability accommodations by the police and Crown attorneys.

The Crown attorney respondents requested dismissal based on prosecutorial immunity, while the police respondents requested deferral pending the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings against the applicant's husband.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Crown attorneys, finding they are immune from such proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the remainder of the application against the police respondents to avoid jeopardizing the ongoing criminal proceedings, which are subject to a publication ban.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his food restrictions while incarcerated.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay and noted that receipt of public assistance does not apply to the facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim regarding receipt of public assistance as that ground only applies to housing.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application for delay at this stage, finding that some of the allegations fell within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, seeking to keep a dog in her condominium unit despite a no-pet rule.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided in a prior condominium arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the Code and the applicant's medical evidence, concluding there was no violation.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not re-litigate the issue by presenting new medical evidence she chose to withhold during the arbitration.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that he had mailed his application before the limitation period expired and cited medical issues as reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why his medical and mailing documentation could not have been obtained and disclosed prior to the original hearing, and thus failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.