Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing, goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability, relating to home renovations commenced in 1992.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file written submissions addressing the delay issue and explaining why the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy, initially naming only the executive director as a respondent.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her former employer, the Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, as an organizational respondent.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a finding against the organization, the request was made before any hearing dates were scheduled, and there was no prejudice.

The request to add the organizational respondent was granted.

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

She argued the decision was biased, lacked credibility, and ignored material facts, seeking $1,000,000 in damages.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to identify any new determinative facts, conflicting jurisprudence, or other extraordinary circumstances required under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsidering a final decision.

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

She had also filed a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The union requested to intervene in the application, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Despite the parties' preference to proceed to mediation before the Tribunal to save costs, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting its practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings to ensure the effective use of public resources.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and a civil proceeding had been commenced seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of race and colour against the Toronto Transit Commission and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against the individual respondent because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by him.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal removed the individual respondent as a party and directed the applicant to file a Request for Order During Proceedings if she wished to name another individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment six days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was due to emotional distress and efforts to pursue WSIB matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ability to contact other agencies demonstrated he was not so disabled as to be unable to function or file his application on time.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite a previous interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their Responses within five days and explain their delay, warning that failure to comply would result in them being deemed to have accepted the allegations and waived their right to participate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate and provide modified duties.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The union also requested intervener status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the concurrent grievance proceeding.

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

During the hearing, the applicant left abruptly, citing a migraine, while still under cross-examination.

She subsequently failed to comply with Tribunal directions to request a medical adjournment by a specified deadline and failed to attend the continuation of the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to her failure to attend, noting that her evidence was incomplete and she had not complied with previous production orders.

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

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

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions, he eventually filed a Reply arguing the release was not binding because the respondent took advantage of his vulnerability.

The Tribunal accepted the late Reply and scheduled a telephone conference call to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the release.

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

The Tribunal noted the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business and directed the applicant to file submissions on jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a subsequent Interim Decision, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for delay and requesting production of the applicant's medical records, financial documentation, and job search records.

The Tribunal deferred the timeliness issue to the start of the hearing.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant but directed the applicant to provide submissions on her claim of privilege regarding the medical and financial records.

The applicant was ordered to produce her job search documentation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed 17 grievances on her behalf raising the same human rights issues, which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the concurrent grievance proceedings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

She had also filed a concurrent grievance under her collective agreement regarding the same dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts, remedies, and human rights issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to allow the grievance arbitration to proceed first.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, family status, and reprisal regarding a medical leave.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant passed away after the hearing but before a decision was rendered.

The applicant's estate filed a request to withdraw the application, to which the respondent consented.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding unreturned property upon his release from custody.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to hear submissions on whether the application raises a prima facie violation of the Code and whether the delay in filing was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents requested early dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred by s. 34(11) and s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek Code remedies, and the civil proceeding was not yet concluded.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the civil litigation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application.

The original decision found that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences' under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that human rights legislation should be given a large and liberal interpretation.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the statutory definition of 'record of offences' is explicit and cannot be expanded, and that the applicant failed to meet the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.