Alison Renton

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged that photocopier emissions triggered her asthma and environmental sensitivities, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had previously denied her claim, finding no causal link between the emissions and her medical condition.

The Tribunal found that the factual issues regarding the cause of the applicant's medical conditions were central to both proceedings.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

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

The application was initially deferred pending a related WSIB proceeding.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay in reactivation after the WSIB allowed the claim.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding was not fully completed due to an ongoing psychological assessment and that related criminal proceedings against the alleged harasser were also relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the WSIB assessment.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Barack Obama and other public figures, alleging discrimination across multiple social areas and grounds.

The application was largely incoherent and failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding that the application did not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any protected ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application as plain and obviously outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because an overlapping proceeding under the Employment Standards Act was scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found that there was an overlap in the facts between the two proceedings and deferred the application pending the issuance of the OLRB's decision.

The applicant requested that his human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The respondent City supported the deferral, while the personal respondent opposed it.

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

In accordance with its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following her termination and subsequent grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that judicial immunity applied to the arbitrator who chaired the arbitration panel and dismissed the application against him.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by conference call to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, for abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

A case management conference call was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the respondents in her human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of Ramada Worldwide Inc. as a respondent, as the hotel was independently owned and operated.

The Tribunal also added 722496 Ontario Limited, Mayfield GP No. 1, Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc., and 5400 Dixie Road Inc. as respondents, finding they were owners or operators of the hotel at the material time and could be liable for the alleged conduct.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on pregnancy.

The respondent filed an incomplete response through an unnamed representative who failed to provide a Law Society of Upper Canada registration number.

After the respondent and representative failed to reply to Tribunal correspondence, the Tribunal ruled that the respondent would be bound by the incomplete information submitted, and the representative would not be permitted to act without proof of LSUC registration or exemption.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over her 2012 grievance.

The Tribunal found an overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the 2014 grievances, which specifically alleged a failure to accommodate under the Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the applicant could reactivate it if her human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

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

The applicant claimed that a protracted internal workplace investigation exacerbated his mental health, which delayed his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation supporting his claim that his mental health prevented him from filing on time.

Furthermore, pursuing an internal complaint does not justify a delay under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance covering the same time period and issues, which was scheduled for mediation and arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights legislation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by a co-worker.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the co-worker as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and found that the allegations could support a Code violation and that it would be fair to add the co-worker, who had not responded to the request despite being personally served.

The request to add the personal respondent was granted.

Following a decision upholding their human rights applications regarding discrimination based on the use of a service animal, the applicants requested that the Tribunal anonymize their identities in the decision.

Although the request was made after the final decision was issued, the Tribunal treated it as a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the disclosure of sensitive mental health information, including suicidal ideation and involuntary hospitalization, warranted anonymizing the applicants, witnesses, respondents, and the service animal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a corporate respondent and add a personal respondent in an application alleging employment discrimination based on pregnancy.

As there was no opposition from the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement but failed to deliver it to the respondents as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Despite multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting proof of service or an alternative address, the applicant's representative failed to provide the necessary information or respond to the final warning.

The Tribunal concluded it would be manifestly unfair to proceed with an application that the respondents had not received, and consequently closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation in employment.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the alleged harasser as a personal respondent and to clarify the names of the corporate respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code, corporations are not vicariously liable for sexual harassment, making it necessary to name the alleged harasser personally.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to correctly identify the corporate respondents.

The applicant sought to amend the remedies requested in his human rights application, withdrawing his request for reinstatement and instead seeking future loss of wages and benefits until age 65 or until he secures alternate employment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, noting that the respondents would have the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant on any new evidence related to the amended remedies.

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

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance process.

The union subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to provide a status update and to file a Request to Re-activate the application within 60 days of the grievance's conclusion, as required by Rule 14.4.

The applicant failed to file the request or provide the required submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.