Alison Renton

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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of its ongoing fitness to practice proceedings regarding the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the issues before the fitness to practice proceedings supported deferring the application to avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant and respondents filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend pleadings, correct the corporate respondent's name, add a personal respondent, and establish a timetable for disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the requests, ordering the amendments and setting the agreed-upon timetable for the exchange of witness statements and documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to psychological trauma, ignorance of the law, and pursuing a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence of her trauma, noted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and held that pursuing rights in another forum does not justify a delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, a long-term employee with a workplace injury, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability, as well as reprisal.

She claimed she was subjected to unfair discipline, excessive monitoring, difficulties accessing the workplace through a security gate, and that human resources failed to investigate her harassment complaints.

During the merits hearing, the respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant belonged to protected groups, she failed to provide any evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to her sex or disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the reprisal allegations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police department.

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

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, instead citing efforts to pursue his rights in other forums.

The Tribunal found this insufficient to justify a waiver of the limitation period and dismissed the application as out of time.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an order for the production of the applicant's complete and unredacted medical records.

The applicant opposed, arguing the records were not relevant to understanding her functional limitations and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documentation arguably relevant because the applicant had placed her medical condition at issue by seeking accommodation and claiming her condition worsened due to the respondent's conduct.

Disclosure was limited to respondent's counsel and their instructing client to address privacy concerns.

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

The respondent requested an order permitting it to access and disclose the applicant's personal health information from its Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its Response, and an extension of time to file the Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the applicant had placed his medical condition in issue and had not opposed the request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal, claiming he was subjected to negative performance management and terminated after taking parental leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding performance management under section 45.1 of the Code, as they had already been adjudicated and dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations regarding termination and denial of overtime as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed earlier allegations as untimely, finding they did not constitute a series of incidents and there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in services and reprisal should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that there were significant credibility disputes between the parties regarding the corporate respondent's return policy, the applicant's removal from a sales line, and the issuance of a trespass ban.

Concluding that these factual disputes required a full hearing to resolve, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed.

The applicant, a 17-year-old Crown ward withdrawn from parental control, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of age by denying her a rental apartment.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' rental agent and property manager explicitly refused to rent to the applicant because she was under 18, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' shifting and fabricated evidence, including an altered rental application.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to develop a human rights policy and undergo training.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement by delaying the provision of a confirmation of employment letter for four months and including spelling errors in the letter.

The Tribunal found that the Minutes did not specify a time limit for providing the letter, importing a standard of reasonableness.

The Tribunal concluded that the four-month delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances and that the letter provided complied with the requirements of the Minutes.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance process.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove Janet Ferguson as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The corporate respondent, the Municipality of Lambton Shores, accepted deemed or vicarious liability for the alleged conduct of the personal respondent.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent.

The request was granted and Janet Ferguson was removed as a party.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application to include additional facts and remedies.

The respondent and the applicant's union consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 1.7(c) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the request was made early in the process before a Response was required.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled conference call.

The applicant claimed he missed the call because he had to take his daughter to the hospital.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide medical documentation verifying the hospital visit and to explain his delay in filing submissions.

The applicant failed to provide the requested information or respond to the Tribunal's direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a teleconference hearing.

He claimed that chronic pain and medical injections caused him to forget the hearing date.

The Tribunal directed him to provide medical documentation supporting this claim.

The applicant provided a doctor's letter confirming his chronic pain and treatments, but the letter did not address any memory loss or inability to attend the hearing.

Finding no medical evidence to support his explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a six-month adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the death of her father, which required her to travel out of the country.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment but found a six-month delay unnecessary, instead directing that the hearing be rescheduled to commence in October 2014.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related grievance arbitration proceedings.

The applicant argued the arbitration was taking too long.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the arbitration was actively continuing with scheduled hearing dates and raised the same issues as the application.

The application remains deferred until the arbitration process concludes.