Alison Renton

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal found that there was overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

After failing to comply with disclosure obligations and failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be dismissed if she did not communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent.

During a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant presented a written offer to settle, which the respondent orally accepted.

The applicant later claimed there was no settlement, arguing he withdrew his offer, was under duress, and lacked medical capacity to understand the terms.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached, as the essential terms were agreed upon and the applicant intended to form a settlement.

The applicant failed to prove he withdrew the offer or that he was incapacitated or coerced.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process in light of the binding settlement.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on short notice due to the sudden hospitalization of the representative's immediate family member.

The applicant opposed the request due to the short notice and the fact that witnesses had taken time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden hospitalization constituted an exceptional circumstance under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to increase the monetary remedies claimed to $92,812.03 and to add UNIFOR as a respondent.

The respondent Quinte Healthcare Corporation took no position, and UNIFOR did not file submissions.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it was fair to add UNIFOR.

The Tribunal granted both requests, amending the monetary remedies and adding UNIFOR as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on creed, asserting that his membership in the Carpenter's Local 27 and adherence to its tenets constituted a creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that union membership and its associated tenets do not meet the definition of creed under the Human Rights Code, which requires sincerely held religious beliefs and practices.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, family status, and marital status after her application to the Second Career fund was denied.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on speculation and that she could not point to any evidence linking the denial of funding or the respondents' conduct to a protected Code ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment by the personal respondent, the President and CEO of her former employer.

The respondents failed to participate in the Tribunal's process and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including unwelcome physical touching and inappropriate comments, which constituted sexual harassment.

The organizational respondent was held jointly and severally liable as the personal respondent was its directing mind.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the organizational respondent to provide human rights training and post Code cards.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision that upheld a human rights application against it.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's credibility findings and factual conclusions, arguing that the adjudicator failed to accept its evidence and relied on circumstantial evidence not pleaded.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent was attempting to re-argue points made during the hearing and repair deficiencies in its case, which does not meet the limited grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against her on the basis of age through the actions of its by-law officers.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and the applicant failed to establish a series of incidents or a good faith reason for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided only bald assertions and no evidence linking the by-law enforcement actions to her age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of issue estoppel and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's underlying claim alleged discrimination by the respondent in calculating her social assistance benefits, an issue previously determined by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case, repair deficiencies in her previous submissions, and raise issues that did not meet the limited criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to outstanding production requests and the respondent's failure to file a response to her Request for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that outstanding production requests do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, particularly since the applicant had failed to comply with her own disclosure obligations.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with the first day dedicated to addressing the outstanding production requests and exploring mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to determine if the application alleging employment discrimination based on race had no reasonable prospect of success.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents called into the hearing.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a third human rights application and sought to have it consolidated with her two previous applications.

The respondent consented to the consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications and considered whether to defer them pending the conclusion of an ongoing arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

Despite the applicant's objections regarding the speed of the GSB proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications, noting that the grievance process was active and a mechanism was in place to address post-July 2013 issues.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to call two additional witnesses in reply to the respondents' evidence regarding his reputation.

The Tribunal reviewed the anticipated evidence and found that it addressed the main allegations in the applications rather than rebutting the respondents' evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that permitting the evidence at this stage would allow the applicant to improperly split his case.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of a key witness and the medical condition of the organizational respondent's principal.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that while witness unavailability did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, the medical condition of the principal did.

The adjournment request was granted and the hearing dates were cancelled.

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

During a case management call, which the personal respondent failed to attend, the applicant requested to add her employer, American Restaurant Service, as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and directed that the application be served on the newly added corporate respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and disability.

After her legal representation withdrew, the applicant failed to comply with her disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Despite receiving multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that the application would be dismissed if she did not comply, the applicant failed to provide disclosure or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision over a year after it was issued, well beyond the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations for the delay, including lack of legal representation and other ongoing legal actions, did not constitute a good faith explanation under Rule 26.5.1A.

The Request for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.