Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment arising from an incident for which the respondent was criminally charged.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of his criminal proceedings to avoid prejudice to his right to remain silent.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that the facts in the criminal proceeding overlap significantly with the application and deferral avoids the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after failing to complete the requirements of an online Bachelor of Education program.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the courses were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the university's appeal process, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate following her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 16-month delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed after the respondents failed to return his ring upon his release from custody in 2005.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on creed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the nearly 48-month delay in filing the application was not incurred in good faith, as incarceration and prior efforts to contact the respondents did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal and association, specifically citing his prior union involvement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because union association is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no allegations that the applicant attempted to enforce rights under the Code or was discriminated against based on a protected ground.

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

After discovering the originally named respondents did not operate the restaurant where the alleged discrimination occurred, the applicant requested to remove them and add the correct corporate entity.

Applying the Smyth factors, the Tribunal granted the request, removed the original respondents, and added the new corporate respondent.

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

The respondents previously requested early dismissal because the applicant had also filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the early dismissal request but sought submissions on whether to defer the application.

Given that the civil trial had already commenced and was at an advanced stage, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of association and reprisal, claiming he was falsely accused of serious misconduct at work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a ground of discrimination under the Code or reprisal as defined in the Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no facts alleged within the scope of the Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be the lawyer for another party in another legal proceeding, a relationship not covered by the Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions responding to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, having only stated on his application form that he mistakenly believed the limitation period was two years.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without making inquiries does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent Tribunal letter inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove his employer as a respondent following a settlement, and to re-activate his human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the employer.

The personal respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related criminal proceedings against him.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance regarding food restrictions while incarcerated.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions within 5 days addressing the delay and identifying allegations related to the receipt of public assistance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied entry to a supermarket because he uses a motorized scooter.

The applicant initially named the building owner as the respondent and subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the supermarket as a respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and granted the request, directing the newly added respondent to file a response.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She argued that she was self-represented and emotionally distraught when she filed her application, and did not realize she had to link the respondent's actions to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that these circumstances did not constitute new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case, as required by Rule 26.5(a) of the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment following his termination.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, arguing the matter was barred by a full and final release and minutes of settlement from a prior small claims court action.

The Tribunal noted that under section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, it cannot finally dispose of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to consider the respondent's request for early dismissal and directed the parties to provide updates on a second small claims court action.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The union filed a request to intervene to provide factual information, which was granted as it was unopposed.

The Tribunal directed that a hearing be scheduled to determine whether the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal following an alleged false arrest and incarceration.

The Crown Attorney respondents requested the application be dismissed, arguing they do not provide 'services' under the Code and have prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the alleged actions of the Crown Attorney respondents amount to discrimination in the provision of a good, service, or facility before deciding whether to dismiss the application against them or defer the matter pending outstanding criminal proceedings.

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

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had accepted a termination package and signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's notices regarding the request to dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.