Alison Renton

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application because the applicant had filed a concurrent Employment Standards complaint with the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the ESA complaint dealt with wage issues and working conditions, while the human rights application alleged discrimination and harassment.

The Tribunal found that the issues were separate with little potential for conflicting findings of fact or law, and directed that the application continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Safety File before filing their Response.

The Tribunal found that the respondents required access to the applicant's health information to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondents be permitted to access and use the health information and extended the deadline for filing their Response.

The respondent, Ajax Nissan, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its witnesses and its representative was unable to attend due to medical treatments.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the applications should proceed separately.

The co-respondent, Midway Nissan, consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical treatment constituted an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction, and reaffirmed that the two applications should be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings of credibility.

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

Subsequently, the applicant was terminated and commenced a civil action seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including general damages under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim encompassed the same factual allegations of harassment and failure to accommodate as the application, and sought Code remedies.

As section 34(11) is mandatory, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application following the completion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application was untimely, dealt with by the OLRB, and barred by a signed release.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application but directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the grounds raised by the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the names and addresses of the applicant's spouse and a relative/friend who were present at a specific meeting.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the parties were not yet required to file their witness information and statements.

The Tribunal also reminded the applicant of the proper procedure for amending her application to include new Code grounds.

The applicant filed two applications: one alleging a breach of settlement against Ajax Nissan, and another alleging reprisal and discrimination against Midway Nissan.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be heard together, given that both arose from the same factual matrix and involved overlapping witnesses.

The respondents supported hearing the matters together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be heard together, finding it the most fair and expeditious approach.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment as a service coordinator because of her family status, specifically her responsibilities toward her special needs child.

The respondents maintained she was terminated during her probationary period for poor performance, including excessive socializing and leaving her post.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the evidence showed the decision-maker was unaware of her special needs child and the termination was based on performance issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings and a WSIB psychological assessment.

The applicant provided evidence that both the criminal proceedings and the WSIB process had concluded.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a mediation date be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination with respect to contracts.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions, including a Notice of Hearing, a Case Assessment Direction, and a Registrar's letter, requiring the applicant to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The applicant failed to comply with any of these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging sex and age discrimination in employment filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of telephone records for several individuals and corporations for the month of September 2014.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal found that the records for most of the requested parties were not arguably relevant.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the telephone records for Arslan Malik and the corporate respondent for September 23, 2014, the specific date the applicant alleged a telephone conversation took place.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin and disability against the Social Benefits Tribunal, Scotiabank, Canada Pension, and the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Social Benefits Tribunal on the basis of adjudicative immunity and delay.

The application against Scotiabank, Canada Pension, and the Canada Revenue Agency was dismissed because these entities fall under federal jurisdiction.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed 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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a previously filed complaint with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application until the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The applicant alleged systemic discrimination based on race and ethnic origin against a Florida-based educational institute and its instructor, relating to courses taken in Ontario and other jurisdictions including New Hampshire.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal held that the applicant had standing to allege systemic discrimination on her own behalf.

However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction over the allegations concerning the New Hampshire course, as the respondents were not based in Ontario and the services were provided outside the province.

The Tribunal also ruled on the applicant's document production requests, ordering limited disclosure of participant names from a Toronto course while denying broader requests as overly broad or irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that it lacks jurisdiction to hear applications against tribunals based on the execution of their adjudicative duties.

Finding that the applicant's complaints related to her disagreement with the Board's orders and its failure to address her concerns with her former landlord, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability, claiming the respondents gave her bad references and refused to rehire her.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant's desire to 'get on with her life' did not constitute a good faith explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment be deferred pending the conclusion of outstanding criminal charges against him based on the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that because the criminal charges stem from the same facts, there is significant potential for factual overlap and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, requesting it be consolidated with her first application.

The respondent did not oppose consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications but deferred the second application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process before the Grievance Settlement Board, which was dealing with the same human rights issues.

The applicant, a bus driver, was terminated after being observed urinating in front of his bus and committing traffic violations.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that diuretic medication for his high blood pressure caused an urgent need to urinate.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability (hypertension), he failed to establish a link between the medication and his urgent need to urinate.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's attempt to conceal its knowledge of the applicant's medication indicated that his disability was a factor in the termination decision.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied lost wages and reinstatement because the applicant would have been terminated regardless of the Code breach.