Alison Renton

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, which was deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

Following a Grievance Settlement Board decision, the applicant requested to re-activate her application, arguing not all allegations were addressed.

The respondents opposed, seeking dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, noting it was timely, and deferred the section 45.1 request.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation due to internet censorship at a public library.

He initially named only a librarian as the respondent.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to add the library as a respondent and to amend his requested remedies to include $2,500 in monetary compensation and withdraw his request for the librarian's dismissal.

The respondents consented to adding the library and withdrawing the dismissal request but opposed the monetary claim.

The respondents also brought an RFOP to remove the librarian as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted both requests, allowing the amendments due to a lack of prejudice and removing the librarian because she was acting within the scope of her employment.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents.

Following a case management conference call, the Tribunal issued an interim decision resolving the production disputes.

The Tribunal permitted the respondents to rely on late-filed witness statements, ordered the disclosure of certain redacted email metadata and chart information by agreement, and ordered the production of a former employee's resignation notice.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for other internal assessments and employee resumes, finding them irrelevant to the proceedings.

The applicant, a gay man, alleged that his landlord harassed and discriminated against him based on sex, sexual orientation, family status, and reprisal.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was dealt with during an eviction proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found the LTB did not address the human rights issues and dismissed the section 45.1 request.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the respondent engaged in a course of vexatious homophobic conduct, including using slurs and spitting, and that the applicant's sexual orientation was a factor in his eviction and the subsequent withholding of his belongings.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $5,000 for the loss of personal belongings.

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it had an interest as the bargaining agent and knowledge of the facts.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union almost always has an interest in participating in Tribunal proceedings involving its members and the workplace.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of two union grievances.

She argued that one grievance was abandoned and the other was limited in scope and delayed.

The respondent conceded that the continuing grievance would not address all allegations but argued for partial deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding it impractical to partially defer the application while the arbitration was underway, and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the arbitration.

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

After failing to comply with disclosure obligations and subsequent Tribunal directions, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for 45 minutes, but the applicant did not appear or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex (sexual harassment), and reprisal, approximately nine months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and requested submissions on the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to hospitalization and subsequent medical treatment.

The Tribunal found that while the medical evidence explained a portion of the delay, it did not explain the remaining period before the application was filed.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application after her Employment Standards Act complaint was denied.

The respondent opposed re-activation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the ESA proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal re-activated the application and scheduled a conference call hearing to hear submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include further allegations of reprisal regarding housing discrimination.

The respondent did not object to the amendment but requested that the amendments be underlined and that it be given time to file an amended response.

Applying the factors for amending pleadings, the Tribunal granted the request and set a schedule for the filing of the amended application, response, and reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the non-payment of a retention bonus while on pregnancy leave.

Both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the respondent's financial records and to add a personal respondent, finding the document request overly broad and no basis to add the individual.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for the applicant's payslip, finding it arguably relevant to whether she was an active employee when the bonus became due.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal against his employer, a co-worker/union steward, and his union.

Following a case management call to address preliminary issues, the Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the grounds of race and vocational association.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent and set deadlines for the union to file a response and for the parties to exchange documents prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the allegations did not appear to relate to reprisal under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadline.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to introduce documentation regarding his post-employment income and mitigation efforts on the final day of evidence, having failed to disclose it previously.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's counsel had possessed the documents for seven months without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Admitting the late evidence would prejudice the respondent, who had already concluded its case, and would likely necessitate recalling witnesses and scheduling additional hearing days.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging sex discrimination and homophobic slurs be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB's denial of benefits for traumatic mental stress did not address the substance of the human rights allegations, which included the uttering of slurs, failure to investigate, and termination of employment.

The application was directed to proceed to a hearing.

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

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding delay and the removal of a personal respondent, which were scheduled for a preliminary hearing.

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither party opposed the request and the union had previously filed and withdrawn a grievance related to the matter, the Tribunal granted the request and added the union as an intervenor.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Director of Ontario Works as respondents to her human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that the Ministry of Community and Social Services had previously been named as a respondent but was removed in a 2010 interim decision.

The Tribunal held that attempting to reinstate the Ministry or its officials without having challenged the prior decision via a Request for Reconsideration amounted to an abuse of process.

The request to add the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

After learning the driver's name through a Tribunal order, the applicant sought to add him as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent and the driver opposed the request, arguing the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and found that the driver's alleged conduct was central to the application and remedies could not be awarded against him unless he was a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the driver as a personal respondent and identified his union as an affected party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a learning disability after being denied further attempts to pass the respondent's chiropractic examination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, arguing the last incident occurred in October 2008 when the applicant was informed he was ineligible for further attempts.

The Tribunal agreed that the application, filed in September 2013, was outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the applicant's subsequent internal appeals and personal priorities did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, and dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to call in or otherwise communicate his inability to participate.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.