Colin Johnston

The applicant, who is Deaf, alleged that the respondent YMCA discriminated against him by refusing to pay for an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for a meeting to update his exercise plan following surgery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was proficient in communicating via text and email, and that the meeting did not require an ASL interpreter to be effective.

The Tribunal concluded that the request for an interpreter was a preference rather than a required accommodation, and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to educational services.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal declined to strike a disputed document as premature, ordered the respondent to provide particulars about it, and ordered the production of the applicant's Accessibility Services file.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondent to file late documents, directed the applicant to provide a full summary of its expert's proposed evidence, and excused the College President from attending the initially scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, who alleged racial discrimination by a casino dealer, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of a security video, a telephone transcript, and prior incident reports regarding the dealer.

The respondent agreed the video was arguably relevant but raised privacy concerns regarding other patrons captured on tape.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested materials, imposing conditions that the applicant view the video at the respondent's counsel's office to protect privacy, and directing the redaction of names from any prior incident reports.

The applicant, a 57-year-old custodian with the respondent school board, alleged age discrimination after being denied promotions to two foreperson positions and refused interviews for three supervisor positions.

The successful candidates for the foreperson positions were 45 and 43 years old.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decisions, namely that the successful candidates had superior work performance and supervisory experience.

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation of reprisal, finding no evidence that the respondent's actions regarding summer work assignments were intended to retaliate against the applicant for claiming rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, stating she was in India caring for a parent and obtaining a dual citizenship card.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, especially given the applicant's failure to request it before leaving the country.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's repeated failure to meet her pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability requested an order for the production of documents and particulars relating to the applicant's efforts to mitigate his losses following termination.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documents regarding his job search efforts, income from all sources, and subsequent employment, finding them arguably relevant to the claim for lost income.

However, the Tribunal declined to order the production of the applicant's disability insurance file, citing privacy concerns regarding personal medical information.

The applicant, a 56-year-old female Vice-Principal, alleged that the respondent School Board discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex when she was unsuccessful in a job competition for a Principal position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations primarily pointed to perceived unfairness in the interview and scoring process rather than evidence of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not establish a link between the proposed evidence and the alleged prohibited grounds, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant failed to comply with a direction to produce documents and failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had abandoned it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and creed.

The Tribunal found that allegations from the applicant's first term of employment were largely untimely, except for wage discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim of discrimination based on creed, finding no negative treatment regarding the applicant's religious practices.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by denying him wage increases, using his English language skills and requests for unpaid time off to visit Turkey as pretexts.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages and $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied claims for post-resignation lost wages and punitive damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her union, alleging discrimination based on disability and age regarding the union's handling of her grievance and benefits appeal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints related to the quality of union representation and there was no evidence linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground under the Code.

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

The applicant alleged age discrimination after the respondent school board did not hire her for a casual clerical position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish the first two elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, and that evidence regarding the ages of the successful candidates was within the respondent's control.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not clear the application had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed to a full hearing.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it had discriminated against the applicant regarding her service dog.

The request was filed past the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith and the respondent failed to present any new facts or evidence that were not already considered at the original hearing.

The applicant, who has a physical disability, was hired by the respondent through a wage-subsidy program to develop a website and social media plan.

After the subsidy period ended, the respondent did not continue the applicant's employment, citing poor work performance on his one written assignment.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided ample time for the applicant to complete the assignment and that the poor quality of the work was unrelated to his disability.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a connection between the termination and a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer, her union, the employer's insurance company, and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on disability following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the employer were untimely, as the applicant had no employment relationship with the employer when the most recent events occurred.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the union and the insurance company, finding no evidence that their actions were based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability, citing his termination, disciplinary warnings, denial of promotion and transfer, and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations were untimely and did not constitute a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere speculation to connect the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to deliver and file documents, a list of documents, and witness statements by the required deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal by an extended deadline, the applicant still failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, who has a mental health disability and uses a service dog, alleged that she was denied entry to the respondent's restaurant because of her dog.

The respondent claimed the dog was not wearing a vest and was hyperactive, and that the applicant left before they could discuss the matter.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that the dog was wearing a service vest and that the applicant was told to leave.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by denying the applicant access to the restaurant and awarded $2,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with non-monetary remedies including human rights training for staff.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional remedies, including general damages and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments related only to the relief sought, were reasonably connected to the original allegations, and would not prejudice the respondent or unduly prolong the hearing.