Dale Hewat

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against York University.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, claiming the adjudicator improperly removed personal respondents, denied adjournment requests, and refused to allow certain witnesses to testify.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's claims and found that they had either been fully addressed in previous interim decisions or did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a former student in a university education program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status, and other grounds, claiming a conspiracy by faculty members to fail him in his practicum after he refused sexual advances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a student diagnosed with ADHD and ODD, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability, and engaged in reprisals, through a series of suspensions and disciplinary actions across four different schools.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of racial discrimination or reprisal.

The Tribunal held that the school board had appropriately considered the applicant's disabilities as mitigating factors when imposing discipline and had implemented numerous accommodations and strategies to assist him academically and behaviourally, thereby fulfilling its duty to accommodate.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or place of origin in her employment termination.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misunderstood evidence, preferred the respondents' evidence, and incorrectly named the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not presented any new facts or evidence that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant, a probationary Director of Community Health Promotion, alleged she was terminated because of her work developing a program for Black male youth, claiming discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin.

The respondents maintained she was terminated for performance issues, including failing to complete a required Needs Assessment and poor time management.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation credible and reasonable, noting the employer had initially supported the youth program and even continued it briefly after the applicant's dismissal.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove discrimination was a factor in her termination.

Following a finding that the respondent hospital failed to accommodate the applicant's disability to the point of undue hardship, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal declined to order reinstatement, finding no conclusive evidence of a permanent position meeting her restrictions.

The applicant was awarded $17,767.85 for lost wages, $1,728.00 for mitigation expenses, $1,489.27 for dental benefits, and $15,000.00 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Requests for public interest remedies were dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to 'appeal' an earlier interim decision that denied his request to expand his witness list, and provided medical information regarding his readiness to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that its rules do not permit appeals or reconsiderations of interim decisions, but provided further explanation for refusing the additional witnesses, noting they lacked direct knowledge of the material events.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for two days to focus solely on the applicant's evidence, with accommodations for breaks as recommended by his doctors.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged systemic age discrimination in the school board's promotion process for vice-principals, relying entirely on statistical evidence to show that older candidates were promoted at lower rates.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's statistical evidence due to methodological flaws and a failure to control for variables other than age, such as qualifications and experience.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence and concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add nine new witnesses to his witness list and requested that the hearing be rescheduled to November 2011.

The hearing had previously been adjourned three times due to the applicant's medical circumstances, and the Tribunal had ordered him to provide medical documentation regarding his ability to participate and any necessary accommodations.

The Tribunal denied the request to add witnesses, finding that the passage of time did not justify expanding the evidence and that the proposed witnesses were duplicative or irrelevant.

The Tribunal also declined to schedule the hearing without the required medical documentation, ordering the applicant to provide it by August 30, 2011, and warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the application due to delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment and abuse of process after he and his representative failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that he did not receive notice of the assigned adjudicator, experienced communication issues with the Tribunal, and alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had notice that his adjournment requests were denied and was required to attend the hearing regardless of the assigned adjudicator.

The Tribunal also found no basis for the allegations of bias.

The applicant, a registered nurse with a permanent back impairment, alleged that her employer, the Hospital, and her union, ONA, discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against ONA for failing to establish a prima facie case.

Regarding the Hospital, the Tribunal found no discrimination or harassment in its handling of a workplace conflict or its accommodation efforts in 2006 and 2007.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Hospital failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship when it prematurely ended her gradual return to work program in October 2009 and placed her in a Labour Market Re-Entry program without continuing to search for suitable permanent accommodation.

The claim of reprisal was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin.

The applicant argued that the respondent's witnesses lied, sought to introduce new evidence, and claimed he was not allowed to fully present his case at the original hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that the proposed new evidence was available at the time of the hearing and would not be determinative.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he did not receive an enhanced severance payment negotiated for bargaining unit employees upon the respondent's plant closure.

Following a workplace injury, the applicant had been accommodated in a non-union security guard position.

He also alleged discrimination for not being retained as a security guard to oversee the closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the enhanced severance because he was not a member of the bargaining unit, and that the security guard retained for the closure was employed by an outside company.

The applicant, a black female employed as a Telephone Representative, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination and harassment by her supervisors, culminating in her termination.

The employer maintained that the applicant engaged in a pattern of insubordinate and confrontational behaviour, and that her termination was solely due to this unacceptable conduct.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its performance management and disciplinary actions.

The application was dismissed, as the evidence did not establish that the employer's conduct was vexatious or based on race or colour.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including requests for early dismissal.

The applicant's paralegal representative failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions to file materials, unsuccessfully sought three adjournments, and ultimately failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the failure to attend and comply with directions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the representative's pattern of conduct, which was directed at avoiding or delaying the hearing, constituted an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, providing an additional basis for dismissal.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing until May or June 2011 due to medical issues, specifically sleep apnea and chronic depression, as well as work-related concerns.

The respondent objected to a delay beyond mid-April 2011, citing prejudice from the passage of time and scheduling conflicts for its witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported an adjournment to mid-April 2011 and that further delay for work or preparation reasons was unjustified.

The hearing was adjourned to mid-April 2011.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated following a workplace injury and subsequent WSIB claim.

The respondents claimed the applicant was laid off due to a lack of work prior to the injury.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence inconsistent and concluded that the applicant's injury and WSIB claim were significant factors in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, ordered the respondents to post a Human Rights Code notice, and reserved its decision on wage loss pending further evidence.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to poor health, supported by a doctor's note.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that the applicant had already been granted a previous adjournment and that further delay would cause irreparable harm given the age of the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the medical evidence but ordered the applicant to provide a further doctor's note indicating when he would be able to participate before scheduling new hearing dates.

The respondent university brought a request for orders during proceedings in a human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to rely on late-disclosed documents and a tape recording, noting the applicant had already been granted multiple extensions and failed to explain the recording's relevance.

The Tribunal permitted a respondent witness residing in Costa Rica to testify by conference call.

Finally, applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individual employees as personal respondents, finding the corporate respondent university would be liable for their conduct.

The applicant, a teacher with multiple chemical sensitivity and other disabilities, alleged that her union and its representatives discriminated against her by failing to adequately represent her in seeking accommodation from her employer.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the union's actions, which included filing a grievance and pursuing an accommodation plan, did not constitute differential treatment or discrimination.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.