Bruce Best

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability requested an order for early access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management (OHCM) file prior to filing its Response.

The applicant opposed the request on privacy grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documents were necessary for the respondent to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal limited access to the relevant time period and imposed strict confidentiality safeguards, while also ordering the respondent to provide a copy of the disclosed file to the applicant.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove her union, CUPE Local 79, as a respondent.

The union consented.

The Tribunal also considered whether to defer the application pending a grievance process.

Since the applicant declined the union's assistance and no grievance was filed, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The union was removed as a respondent but remained an affected party.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents.

The respondent complied, but the applicant failed to do so.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, prompting the Tribunal to issue a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to comply and warning of potential dismissal.

When the applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that institutional delays at the WSIAT, estimated at 18 to 24 months, justified immediate reactivation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the significant overlap of issues remained and that reactivating the application would result in concurrent proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement.

The applicant objected, arguing that previous grievances had not resulted in the desired changes.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment due to reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged reprisal did not appear to stem from claiming or enforcing Code rights.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the completion of an ongoing grievance.

The applicant withdrew his grievance but failed to request reactivation of the application within 60 days as required by the Tribunal's rules.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry regarding the status of the grievance, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

She simultaneously filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a related entity.

The respondents sought early dismissal, arguing the matter fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction as a broadcaster.

Given the uncertainty regarding the corporate relationships and whether the applicant was employed by a federal or provincial undertaking, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal proceedings.

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

Criminal charges were also laid against the individual respondent arising from the same incidents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the criminal proceedings.

The respondents advised that the individual respondent pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing.

The Tribunal decided not to defer the application, but instead extended the time for the respondents to file their Response until after the scheduled sentencing hearing.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the Toronto Police Services Board more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the applications appeared to be out of time and lacked facts supporting a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOIDs.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding they were out of time under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that there was no good faith explanation for the delay under s. 34(2).

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered practical nurse for misappropriating $500 from an elderly client's bank account, impersonating the client, and continuing to practice and use the title of nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Based on clear and cogent evidence, including bank surveillance video and witness testimony, the Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

The panel ordered the revocation of the member's registration and an oral reprimand, noting the member's failure to attend demonstrated a disregard for the College's authority.