Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, claiming the respondent improperly collected and considered information about criminal charges for which he received a discharge.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he had a 'record of offences' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the clear statutory definition of 'record of offences' in section 10 of the Code only protects individuals who have been convicted of an offence and received a pardon, or convicted of a provincial offence.

As the applicant was never convicted and only received a discharge, he did not fall within the Code's protection.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple Tribunal directions and warnings.

A representative for one respondent claimed a joint Response was sent, but the Tribunal never received it.

A new property management company subsequently contacted the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to clarify their relationship, identify contact persons, and immediately file the Response along with proof of original transmission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination when the respondent doctor failed to accept her as a new patient.

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant received proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence, despite allegedly telling respondent's counsel she had requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period, despite leaving voicemail messages with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed by his manager.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis, arguing the applicant failed to name a recognized creed and did not establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal deferred the request and ordered a conference call hearing to hear submissions on whether the allegations constitute 'creed' under the Code and whether they raise a prima facie violation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed in the provision of educational services, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his religious beliefs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding two individual respondents.

Based on the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal removed one individual respondent but retained the other, as it was not plain and obvious she should not be named given her alleged role as a decision-maker in the applicant's termination from the program.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The respondents also sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled oral submissions to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request, as required by section 43(2) of the Code.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, noting the corporate respondent accepted liability for any damages flowing from the alleged violations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding poor quality home renovations completed in 1992 under a government accessibility program.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed due to a 1998 release and untimeliness.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to demonstrate that the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss allegations pertaining to non-applicants, requesting particulars, and seeking an extension of time to file a Response.

The applicant sought to add his mother and sisters as applicants.

The Tribunal ordered a conference call hearing to address whether the mother and sisters should be added as parties, whether their claims are barred by delay, the request for particulars, and whether the application should continue against a respondent who is out of the country.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family and marital status following her termination.

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

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code, the applicant had the opportunity to seek legal advice, and there was no evidence of duress or coercion.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged new facts regarding his medical condition and the mailing date of his application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide documentary evidence, including WSIB materials and Canada Post records, before determining whether to grant the reconsideration request.

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

After the respondent advised the Tribunal that the parties had settled, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Form 9 by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in the file being considered abandoned.

The applicant did not file the form or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

Following the applicant's death, the Tribunal contacted his wife and the estate trustee to determine if they intended to proceed with the application.

After receiving no response to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, relating to a dog she acquired for a mental health condition.

The respondent condominium corporation sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a prior condominium arbitration that ordered the dog's removal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise within ten days whether she wishes to make oral submissions on the early dismissal request, as required by section 43(2) of the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his driver's licence was suspended due to a visual field deficit and he failed the road test component of the Ministry's vision waiver program.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that pursuant to section 47(2) of the Human Rights Code and section 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act, the visual criteria and waiver program testing requirements apply despite the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.

A hearing was scheduled to address whether a full and final release signed by the applicant barred the application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last 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 the application form that he believed the limitation period was two years.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without making inquiries does not constitute a reasonable explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by the corporate respondent and 11 employees.

The applicant subsequently submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove six of the personal respondents, noting two were named in error and four were unnecessary as there were no allegations of harassment for which the corporate respondent would not be liable.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the six personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent at a conference in August 2007.

The application was filed approximately 18 months later, outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was attempting to resolve the matter with the corporate respondent and did not know the personal respondent was not an employee until August 2008.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the possible Code violation in August 2007 and that efforts to pursue rights without filing an application do not justify waiving the limitation period.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability after her doctor refused to write a specific letter of support for her workplace accommodation and subsequently terminated their doctor-patient relationship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant self-identified as having a disability, she failed to link the doctor's refusal to provide the requested letter or the termination of the relationship to her disability or any other prohibited ground under the Code.