Bruce Best

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his application to include new allegations of discriminatory comments and text messages regarding his disability, which he claimed to have discovered after filing the initial application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the new allegations were substantial, late, and untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that evidence of untimely allegations may be admissible as background context, and left the determination of whether the new allegations constituted separate, timely incidents of discrimination to the adjudicator hearing the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Ciptapati Winhar Inc. as an organizational respondent.

The applicant alleged that the actions of an individual respondent, who is a director of the corporation, may be deemed to be the actions of the corporation under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

As no respondents objected and the corporation is a proper party if the allegations are true, the Tribunal granted the request and added the corporation as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

After the stay was lifted, the Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should continue to be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, and noted the grievance process was proceeding in an expedited fashion.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who had a disability due to a collapsed lung, was terminated after admitting to drinking a beer on his lunch break.

Two co-workers without disabilities who also drank were only given warnings.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and race.

The Tribunal found that the employer's skepticism regarding the applicant's recent request for disability accommodation contributed to the decision to terminate him rather than issue a warning.

The race discrimination claim was dismissed.

The Tribunal awarded $20,350 for lost wages, $5,000 for injury to dignity, and ordered human rights training for management.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability against a bank and its mortgage subsidiary.

The allegations related to the bank's failure to cancel credit card insurance, its refusal to change the frequency of mortgage payments, and reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the core issues involved banking and lending, which fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal noted that even if the credit insurance issue fell under provincial jurisdiction, it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the bank's actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding accommodations during a course.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application for delay, removal of the individual respondent, and dismissal for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested anonymization.

The Tribunal found the application timely as the events constituted a series of incidents ending with the final exam.

The Tribunal refused to remove the individual respondent, denied the anonymization request, and found the application could not be dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success without hearing evidence.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, alleged that the respondent public health unit discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and citizenship when it failed to select him for an interview in four separate job competitions.

The applicant argued that the respondent's hiring practices, including its assessment of language proficiency and foreign experience, were discriminatory and created systemic barriers.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

For each position, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant either did not meet the minimum qualifications or that the candidates selected for interviews were better qualified.

The applicant applied for an ESL teaching position and was not hired.

When she inquired about the reason, the respondent accused her of making racist comments and threatened to report her to an accreditation body.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that being accused of racism is not a discriminatory act, and the respondent's threat did not constitute reprisal under the Code as the applicant had not previously claimed or enforced her Code rights.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The parties attended mediation and reached a settlement in principle, but failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement (Form 25) by the required deadline.

After the Tribunal followed up and received no response from either party, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications and Case Assessment Directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had received notice but chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the respondents were deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, and the matter was directed to proceed to a case management conference call with the applicant alone.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's 'Special' transit pass, which he claimed publicly identified him as a person with a disability in receipt of social assistance.

The respondent raised preliminary issues, arguing the pass was a protected special program under s. 14 of the Human Rights Code and that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal dismissed the special program defense, finding the application challenged the program's implementation rather than its existence.

The Tribunal also found the application timely, as each issuance of the pass constituted an incident in a series.

The applicant's request for particulars was denied as premature.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought to amend the application to include additional allegations regarding events from November 2016 to June 2017, and requested an order for the production of documents.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding them timely and a continuation of the original allegations.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on next steps for determining the Application.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the grievance proceedings were ongoing and scheduled for arbitration shortly.

The application remains deferred until the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

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

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to ongoing attempts to resolve the matter with his employer and union, as well as illness.

The Tribunal found that pursuing alternative recourses does not constitute a good faith reason for delay, and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating his illness prevented him from filing in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a building superintendent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and contracts after his employment was terminated for frustration of contract following a workplace assault.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing, arguing the housing issues were already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 2014 contract renewal but allowed the remaining claims to proceed, finding that the LTB did not have jurisdiction to determine if the employment termination was discriminatory and that the frustration of contract issue required a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled preliminary hearing by teleconference.

The hearing was convened to determine whether the application should be dismissed because the issues had been dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

After waiting 30 minutes with no appearance or communication from the applicant, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the Rideau Hill Camp Council and the United Church of Canada.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether the Church was properly named as a respondent.

The Tribunal reviewed the Camp's by-laws and found that the Church exercised a significant degree of control over the Camp, including restrictions on property transactions and financial indebtedness.

The Tribunal concluded that the Church should remain a respondent, as it could potentially be held liable for the actions of the Camp under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a tenant in a seniors' building paying rent geared to income, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on receipt of public assistance, age, disability, association, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may face difficulties proving his allegations, the application could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success at this stage.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed but ordered the applicant to file a revised application clarifying his allegations and their connection to specific Code grounds.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing under Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.