Alison Renton

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB decision regarding the employer's obligation to re-employ appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the WSIB letter appropriately dealt with the human rights issues raised.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 5 days of receipt, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to elaborate on public interest remedies and add the ground of reprisal.

The respondent did not object but requested an opportunity to file an amended Response and sought particulars of the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, permitting the applicant to amend his Application if the matter is not resolved at an upcoming mediation, and allowing the respondent to file an amended Response thereafter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent a final extension to October 23, 2009, to file a Response and explain the delay.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and provided a final deadline of October 23, 2009, to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

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

Prior to filing the application, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice seeking damages and reinstatement under the Human Rights Code based on the same facts.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Code precludes an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same facts.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and disability, claiming his employment was terminated on the same day he requested parental leave.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same factual issues surrounding the termination, and deferred the application pending the outcome of the ESA claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in goods, services, and facilities, related to alleged physical harm while in jail.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found the application lacked sufficient factual details and directed the applicant to provide written submissions setting out specific allegations and explaining how they fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after raising health and safety concerns and disputing discipline.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on how the alleged reprisal related to the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant did not allege he attempted to claim or enforce rights under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

During the hearing of these human rights applications, several interim issues arose.

The Tribunal ruled that various corporate documents were arguably relevant and admissible, despite allegations they were improperly obtained.

The Tribunal denied a request for the production of personal emails from a dating website, finding them irrelevant at this stage.

A document detailing business trips was admitted as an exhibit, and the Tribunal agreed to digitally record the remainder of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex, sexual solicitation, and age.

The personal respondent, the applicant's former store manager, had not filed a response and the Tribunal was not confident he had received the application.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p), the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to produce the personal respondent's last known address to facilitate service, and directed that a mediation date be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application that substantially overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the arbitration of the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, alleging that the corporate respondent was in financial trouble and might close, which would cause him to lose his right to a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's concern about a possible closure was speculative and did not meet the high threshold required to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in employment by the respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the Application did not allege facts within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, such as attempting to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to file submissions setting out precisely how the respondents engaged in reprisal contrary to section 8, before determining issues of deferral and intervention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments were made during a police interview by a police sergeant and a volunteer interpreter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the volunteer interpreter, finding that she was not providing a service within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce a transcript of the interview and scheduled a conference call hearing to address whether the remaining allegations amount to discrimination in services, whether the application was timely, and whether it should be dismissed because the issues were dealt with in the applicant's criminal trial.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on comments allegedly made by a police sergeant and a translator during an interview with another individual.

The translator respondent submitted she was acting pro bono at the other individual's request and was not providing services within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the allegations against the translator fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over services under section 1 of the Code.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The respondents requested that the Application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the corporate respondent is federally regulated.

The applicant requested that the matter be deferred pending the completion of an investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the Application pending the resolution of the matter under the Canadian Human Rights Act, finding it the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, claiming he was denied the opportunity to request a re-evaluation of his position and retroactive pay because he missed a 2002 meeting while on sick leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the seven-year delay in filing.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to ongoing health issues and attempts to resolve the matter internally.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the lengthy delay and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant's union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 966, filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The union sought to intervene because the applicant was seeking reinstatement, which could affect other employees and the union itself.

The applicant and respondents did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its significant interest in the outcome of the application.