Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Hamilton Police Service in the provision of services, citing 'receipt of public assistance' as the sole ground.

The respondent noted that this ground applies only to housing under the Human Rights Code, not to services.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services because of reprisal, claiming he was accused of inappropriate touching and asked to use a separate washroom.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a protected ground or area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining how the application fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no facts to support a claim of reprisal or any other Code violation.

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

The respondent argued the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal ordered that the application shall be dismissed as abandoned unless the applicant files the required submissions within five business days.

The complainant, a part-time washroom attendant, was discriminated against on the basis of sex when the respondent failed to consider her for a full-time housekeeping position.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the issue of remedy back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded the complainant $5,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal also awarded $1,426.67 for loss of wages, representing a 50% chance she would have received the promotion, for the period up until her resignation.

Requests for agent's fees and orders for future compliance were denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and other areas on multiple grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also issued directions requiring the applicant to provide further particulars regarding her allegations, including the 'record of offences' ground and reasons for delay.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide submissions on its requests for early dismissal and deferral pending ongoing union grievances, and scheduled a preliminary hearing to address these issues.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that the Tribunal defer the proceeding until grievances filed by her union were dealt with under the collective agreement.

The respondents consented to the deferral and the union did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and record of offences.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act complaint regarding her termination, which was dismissed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide further written submissions on the record of offences ground, as her application did not appear to allege facts meeting the statutory definition.

The Tribunal also scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed due to the prior ESA proceeding.

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

A peremptory hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2009.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel attended the hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal rules and directions, and his failure to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that applicants are expected to take the process seriously and attend scheduled hearings.

The applicants, two sisters who were terminated on the same date, filed human rights applications alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

They alleged they were terminated after supporting a co-worker's harassment allegations during a workplace investigation.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the applications were outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also granted the applicants' requests to have their applications heard together due to the significant overlap in facts and issues, and directed the matters to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on 'record of offences' and 'reprisal' following her resignation from employment.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her allegations fit within the Code, but she failed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege facts meeting the definition of 'record of offences' or 'reprisal' under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant's counsel requested a last-minute adjournment of the hearing due to a scheduling conflict in the Superior Court of Justice, and subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant attended but was uncomfortable proceeding without counsel.

Despite the late request and the applicant's failure to comply with document disclosure rules, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to ensure fairness to the applicant, setting a peremptory hearing date.

The respondents' request for $500 in costs was denied as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response and an explanation for the delay by a specified date, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to consolidate the two applications pending the respondents' final opportunity to respond.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federally regulated transportation company that regularly crosses provincial and international boundaries.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested an extension of time to amend pleadings and file additional documentation in response to a newly added ground of sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal granted a brief extension.

The Tribunal declined to address the respondent's complaint against Tribunal staff, noting such complaints must be pursued through the Tribunal's separate administrative complaint process.

Finally, the Tribunal scheduled new hearing dates.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because she had not yet retained an expert witness.

The respondents objected to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had known about the hearing dates for over two months and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated as a reprisal after she participated in a workplace investigation regarding another employee.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not allege facts falling within section 8 of the Human Rights Code, as there was no indication she claimed or enforced Code rights, participated in Code proceedings, or refused to infringe another's Code rights.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file submissions detailing how the alleged reprisal violated section 8 of the Code.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated as a reprisal after she participated in a workplace investigation regarding another employee's allegations against management.

The Tribunal noted that the Application did not allege facts falling within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, as it did not state she claimed Code rights, participated in Code proceedings, or refused to infringe another's Code rights.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions detailing how the alleged reprisal violated section 8.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences and reprisal, claiming she was forced to resign after filing a bullying complaint.

The Tribunal found that the application, on its face, did not allege facts falling within the statutory definitions of record of offences or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide further submissions detailing the precise manner in which the alleged discrimination and reprisal occurred before considering whether to defer the application pending an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 5 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled April hearing dates because one of the personal respondents, who is also an applicant in a related application, would be out of the country on a business trip.

The opposing party objected, arguing the trip was scheduled after the hearing dates were set and that the delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the possibility of a business trip had been raised at a previous hearing and finding no specific prejudice to the opposing party.