Dale Hewat

The applicant, a member of the ACTRA Toronto Extras Caucus, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal, following her removal from the Caucus.

The Tribunal found that the incidents complained of were the result of interpersonal conflicts and the applicant's misinterpretation of comments and non-verbal cues, rather than discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal from the Caucus was due to her rigid adherence to formality and personality conflicts, not a reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights complaint to include other types of discrimination not originally included by the Commission.

The Tribunal denied the request, relying on the reasons set out in an earlier interim decision, and stated it would not consider further requests to expand the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The applicant argued she was denied a hearing and alleged police influence over the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had requested the preliminary issue be dealt with in writing, and her dissatisfaction with the process did not establish a basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a former on-site superintendent, alleged she was terminated and harassed during her employment on the basis of sex and religion by her supervisor and the property management board.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision not to renew the applicant's employment contract was based on documented performance concerns and tenant complaints, not discriminatory factors.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's comments regarding the applicant's strength and occasional discussions about religion did not amount to a course of vexatious conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application, add parties, consolidate applications, and extend the time for filing documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to consolidate, amend the application, and add parties, noting that transitional rules require applications to be based on the subject matter of the original complaint and dealt with expeditiously.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for an extension of time to file documents and facts related to the original complaint, with a corresponding extension for the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, and reprisal by the respondent police services board and individual officers in relation to a neighbour dispute and subsequent criminal proceedings.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, even if true, did not establish a connection to a Code ground or involve the personal respondents in discriminatory conduct.

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

The applicant, a Russian immigrant, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin, as well as reprisal, regarding his residential tenancy.

He claimed he was denied a parking space and lease incentives, received unwarranted eviction notices, and was offered an inferior apartment due to his background.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or reprisal.

The parking space was unavailable because the applicant did not own a car, the eviction notices were automatically generated due to a deficient rent cheque, and the apartment offered was based on availability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging termination based on disability and age.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages for bad faith and explicitly pleading the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action raised the same allegations of Code infringements based on the same facts and sought remedies for those infringements.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) applied and dismissed the application to prevent duplicative proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin by OPP officers during an arrest at her home.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Police Services Bureau (PSB) and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal found that the PSB investigation and OCCPS review constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, as the applicant had a full opportunity to participate and the OCCPS considered the allegations of discriminatory conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of gender regarding the respondent's compensation restructuring package.

The applicant also commenced a civil class action alleging constructive dismissal and breaches of employment standards legislation based on the same underlying facts.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate given the overlapping factual matters and the potential for inconsistent findings, and deferred the application.

The applicant failed to attend a Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision requiring the applicant to explain his absence within 30 days or face dismissal of the application.

The applicant did not contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, place of origin, race, colour, and reprisal.

CUPE, Local 1328, the applicant's bargaining agent, filed a Request to Intervene, noting it had previously filed and withdrawn a grievance on the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding the application raised issues that may affect the union, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.

The applicant requested to add the Teamsters Local Union as a party to his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding insufficient grounds to make the union or its business agents a party.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for written submissions on the respondent's request to defer the application pending the resolution of a related grievance arbitration, before scheduling mediation.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference and failed to file submissions regarding a deferral request or any other documents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 30 days to explain his absence and failure to comply with the Rules, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached a previous human rights settlement and engaged in a reprisal by asking her not to attend a Christmas concert at the workplace.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not breach the confidentiality provision or fail to meet their obligations regarding human rights training and posting Code cards.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents' actions in reminding the applicant not to attend the workplace were based on their interpretation of the settlement agreement and did not demonstrate an intent to retaliate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former executive assistant, alleged discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment on the basis of disability, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin, following her termination.

She claimed her role was diminished, she was yelled at, and a directive to speak only English at work was discriminatory.

The respondents argued the termination resulted from a complete breakdown in the employment relationship and inappropriate workplace behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the language directive was a response to culturally sensitive concerns and not discriminatory.

The Tribunal concluded there was no pattern of discriminatory conduct, but rather a non-discriminatory breakdown in the employment relationship, and dismissed the application.

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.