Dale Hewat

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents from two applications filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the request, noting that section 53(3) applications are designed to be dealt with expeditiously and preliminary motions are discouraged.

The request will be addressed at the outset of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant, who has a physical disability, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination because the respondent condominium corporation refused to pay for the installation of hand railings on the front and back steps of her unit.

The steps were designated as exclusive use common elements.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent approved the installation of the railings, it was not responsible for the cost of alterations to exclusive use common elements under the Condominium Act and the corporation's Declaration.

The application was dismissed as the respondent did not contravene the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged there was new evidence regarding the respondents' knowledge of his origin and a separate criminal matter, and raised procedural issues regarding witness testimony.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence was known to the applicant prior to the hearing and was irrelevant, and that the procedural rulings were consistent with the Tribunal's rules and jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his termination of employment.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and that he misunderstood its terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant received his full severance benefits and did not raise any concerns until after the severance period expired.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being required to terminate her employment to receive long-term disability benefits.

Prior to the application, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice that explicitly pleaded and relied upon the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be barred under s. 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding dealt with the same allegations and subject matter, and that the omission of a specific request for an order under s. 46.1 in the civil claim did not prevent the application of the s. 34(11) bar.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a bilingual customer service agent from Rwanda, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin after his employment was terminated.

He claimed that a series of workplace incidents, including a vacation request dispute, changes to the phone recording system, and disciplinary warnings, were motivated by his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin.

The evidence demonstrated that the termination and prior disciplinary actions were based on the applicant's poor performance, insubordination, and failure to follow instructions, including a serious customer service failure involving a major client.

The application was dismissed.