Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding a ban from the respondent library's premises.

After her adjournment request was denied, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing or provide requested medical documentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they discriminated against the applicant in housing based on her age and awarded $10,000.

The respondents alleged procedural unfairness, errors of fact, and that the monetary award was punitive.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no factual basis for the procedural fairness complaints, noting that the parties had agreed to mediation-adjudication, and holding that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue findings of fact or the quantum of the award.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and marital status regarding the calculation of her Ontario Works benefits and a resulting overpayment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's principles on issue estoppel and concurrent jurisdiction, finding that the SBT had the jurisdiction to apply the Code, the parties and issues were the same, and the applicant had the opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal concluded it would be an abuse of process to permit the application to continue and dismissed it.

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

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file, the removal of the personal respondents, and an extension of time to file a response.

The Tribunal granted limited disclosure of the medical file to the respondents, finding it arguably relevant to the accommodation issues raised.

The request to remove the personal respondents was deferred, and the extension of time to file a response was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, including sexual harassment.

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

Applying the approach from Kearns, the Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference was scheduled to determine the next steps for assessing remedies.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, filed human rights applications against a restaurant and its owners.

The mother, who uses a service animal for multiple disabilities, was denied service and subjected to rude and aggressive behaviour by the owners when she attended the restaurant.

The daughter, who worked as a waitress at the restaurant, was instructed by the owners to deny her mother entry and call the police if she returned.

The owners also threatened to report the daughter's separate dog sledding business to public health if the mother pursued her legal rights.

The Tribunal found that the respondents intentionally discriminated against the mother on the basis of disability and against the daughter on the basis of family status and association, and engaged in reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 to the mother and $15,000 to the daughter for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide additional information regarding the dates of the alleged incidents.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple directions to provide this information and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add E&E Seegmiller Limited and Les Coulas as respondents and to amend her Application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that Les Coulas was already named as a personal respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal added E&E Seegmiller Limited as a corporate respondent because it was the employer of Les Coulas.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her Application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to comply with multiple Tribunal orders and directions regarding document disclosure and confirming his intent to proceed.

The respondent filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal for non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding, the applicant sought to amend his Application to add a new allegation of reprisal, introduce evidence of a recent job interview, amend his claimed monetary remedies, and rely on without prejudice communications with respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal denied the amendment for the new reprisal allegation due to prejudice and unfairness to the respondents at this late stage.

The Tribunal permitted evidence of the job interview and the amendment of remedies.

The Tribunal ruled that the without prejudice communications were inadmissible settlement discussions, except for the limited purpose of demonstrating the applicant's efforts to mitigate his losses.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the remedies sought in her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent filed an RFOP requesting to defer the application pending the completion of related proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her remedies.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues between the Tribunal and WSIAT proceedings, which raised the potential for inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant's litigation guardian provided written submissions but failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Windsor Police Service and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability, association, and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the Windsor police refused to criminally charge a lawyer and misdirected him, and that the OIPRD improperly closed his subsequent complaint, because they perceived him to have schizophrenia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could point to no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground or establishing an intention to reprise.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

He failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including emails and letters warning that failure to respond might result in abandonment.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal and the respondent's counsel attempted to contact the applicant to reschedule the hearing date, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple emails and letters.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond to any correspondence, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status, association, and reprisal against a women's shelter and the Ministry.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and lacked specific allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or provide written submissions as directed.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend the hearing.

The applicant filed the request more than two months late, citing the illness of an immediate family member.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the lack of medical documentation, the applicant's failure to communicate her inability to attend the hearing, and her prior communications which did not mention the family member's illness.

The Tribunal found no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new incidents of alleged discrimination regarding transit services.

The respondent objected to the amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendments were timely, as the matter was still in the early stages and mediation had not yet been scheduled, and that there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file.

The respondent argued the file was necessary to file a meaningful response.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had placed his medical conditions at issue, making the requested documents arguably relevant.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the file from August 2011 to the present and extended the time for filing a response.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to correct a statutory reference.

The applicant sought to replace references to sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Human Rights Code, which pertain to employment, with section 1, which pertains to services.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment was minor, the application was in its early stages, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.