Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, while concurrently pursuing a civil action in Small Claims Court involving overlapping facts and remedies.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the employer accommodated individuals with WSIB claims ahead of those with non-work-related disabilities.

The union respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related policy grievance that was being advanced to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the policy grievance covered the same facts and human rights issues and its outcome could be determinative of the applicant's individual grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the policy grievance process.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance process.

The applicant's union advised that the grievances had been withdrawn, settled, or were not being pursued.

Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to defer the application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application, noting that the respondents had not yet filed a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed two grievances relating to the same issue of workplace accommodation.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent supported it.

The Tribunal found that it would not be constructive to have two proceedings concurrently consider the same facts and potential remedies.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent and dismiss parts of the human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the organizational respondent had implicitly assumed liability for her actions.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether the older factual assertions were separate allegations or context for timely allegations.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging age discrimination be deferred pending the resolution of a parallel civil claim in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that the claims in both proceedings were substantially similar and shared a factual background, creating a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple letters requesting an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability following his termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing the applicant was terminated for attempting to steal company property and had not established a link to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the application could proceed, as there were factual disputes regarding the alleged theft and the applicant provided names of other terminated and hired employees to support his race discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also noted the timing of the termination, one day after the respondent's WSIA re-employment obligations ended, was sufficient for the disability claim to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the form of 'hate messages' from his former landlord and property managers.

The respondents requested dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process, barred by concurrent civil proceedings, and that the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the application was an abuse of process as it re-litigated issues from previous dismissed applications, and was barred by section 34(11) of the Code due to overlapping civil claims.

Furthermore, the applicant's abusive and ungovernable conduct during the preliminary hearing warranted dismissal.

The Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant and ordered that he must obtain leave before filing future applications against the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

A conference call hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was notified of the consequences of failing to attend.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination based on race and colour after police responded to a noise complaint about his singing on a street corner and told him to move along.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed, noting that proving discrimination often relies on circumstantial evidence and the respondent's state of mind, and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The request was filed early in the process and the respondent did not oppose it.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application.

The applicant, a part-time cashier, was terminated at the end of her first shift back to work after a two-day absence due to hospitalization for heart tests.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for disrespectful behaviour during a discussion about a broken chair.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and concluded that the respondent perceived the applicant to have a disability that would negatively impact her attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was terminated because of this perceived disability, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, $11,433.50 for lost wages, and the respondent was ordered to undergo human rights training.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the human rights application and, alternatively, an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because its newly retained counsel had a pre-existing travel conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding that retaining new counsel who is unavailable on a previously scheduled hearing date does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent failed to file a response, resulting in an interim decision deeming it to have accepted the allegations and waiving its right to participate.

The respondent subsequently filed a response and a request for reconsideration, explaining the delay was due to administrative error and a misunderstanding regarding mediation.

The Tribunal revoked the non-participation order, allowing the respondent to participate, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged she was terminated because of her sexual orientation after her manager allegedly stole her cell phone, read her text messages, and discovered she was a lesbian.

The respondents maintained she was terminated for poor performance, including leaving work early and failing to follow instructions.

The Tribunal found the applicant's theory highly improbable, accepted the manager's evidence that she did not steal or search the phone, and concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a police investigation into the allegations, which resulted in no criminal charges, constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal held that a police investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, as it does not involve the same parties, lacks a trial or opportunity to examine witnesses, and cannot provide human rights remedies.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondents requested the production of the applicant's clinical notes from her attending psychologist.

The applicant did not object but had difficulties obtaining the records as the psychologist was on pregnancy leave and out of the country.

The Tribunal ordered the psychologist and her clinic to produce the 2014 clinical notes to the applicant's counsel, who would then provide a redacted copy to the respondents' counsel.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release, but did not file a copy of the settlement.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the settlement should be disclosed.

With the agreement of all parties and the intervenor, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the settlement agreement for the sole purpose of determining the respondent's dismissal request.

The Tribunal also granted the intervenor's unopposed request to intervene.