Dawn J. Kershaw

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of sex and disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations from 2012 to 2015, as the parties agreed they were addressed by the arbitrator.

For the remaining allegations from 1996 to 2011, which were filed outside the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Code.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was delivered to the applicant's representative.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on its merits based on written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicants filed requests to withdraw their human rights applications against the respondent Foster Parents Association of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

As the respondent did not file a response to the requests, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal without terms and amended the style of cause to remove the Association.

The Tribunal also noted the parties' agreement that there was no reason to defer the applications.

The applicant requested an order permitting his treating physiotherapist to testify by teleconference due to the financial hardship of travelling from Ottawa to London.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that an electronic hearing would cause significant prejudice by depriving it of a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness on a crucial incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate how it would be prejudiced or impeded in its cross-examination simply because the evidence would be given by telephone.

The Tribunal noted that visual scrutiny of a witness is not necessary for assessing credibility, particularly for a medical professional whose evidence primarily concerns diagnoses and observations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing her applications as abandoned, seeking to have her name anonymized on all public records.

She argued that the public availability of the decisions was hindering her ability to find and maintain employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no evidence to substantiate her belief that the decisions were affecting her employment prospects, and thus failed to demonstrate the vulnerability or potential harm required to override the open court principle.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination when the respondents decided not to enter into a retail lease with her prospective employer.

The individual respondent requested to be removed as a party, arguing that the corporate respondent was liable for the same conduct and there was no suggestion she acted outside the scope of her employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent's alleged conduct was central to the application, as the applicant alleged the leasing decision was made for personal, non-business reasons.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled but no Form 25 was filed.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to file the settlement form or confirm an intention to proceed, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant consented and the respondent took no position.

Applying the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status be deferred pending the resolution of a parallel civil court action.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the remedies sought in the two proceedings were different.

The Tribunal found that although the legal issues and remedies differed, the underlying facts were the same, creating a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil court action.

The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application to include additional incidents of alleged reprisal and disability discrimination that occurred after the initial filing.

The respondent consented to the amendment, provided it could file an amended response and raise any issues of delay.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Wozenilek test, noting the early stage of proceedings, the nature of the amendment, and the absence of prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add two individuals as personal respondents, to compel production of addresses and business structure documents, and to amend her Application to add a claim of reprisal and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The Tribunal granted the request to add one individual as a personal respondent, finding there were allegations that could support a Code violation and uncertainty regarding the corporate respondent's liability.

The request to add the second individual was denied as he had not been served.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of addresses and documents, and permitted the applicant to amend her Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after the respondent newspaper refused to publish two of his articles.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add the newspaper's editor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found no compelling reason to add the personal respondent, as the editor's actions were in the course of his employment and there were no allegations supporting a finding against him personally.

The request was denied.

The applicant requested hearing accommodations, specifically to testify via videoconference from a separate room due to major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder allegedly resulting from the personal respondent's actions.

The respondents objected, arguing the disability was not conclusively linked to the allegations and emphasizing the need for in-person testimony for credibility assessment.

The Tribunal granted the accommodation, finding sufficient medical evidence supported the request and noting that the accommodation was required for Code-related needs regardless of whether the allegations were ultimately proven.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders to amend her application to increase the monetary remedy sought from $50,000 to $200,000, and for hearing accommodations including testifying via video from a separate room and having a support person present.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests, finding no prejudice to the respondents in the amendment and sufficient medical evidence to support the accommodations.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination after her employment was terminated for cause.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and respondent had reached a settlement through the grievance process, and the applicant signed a full and final release after receiving independent legal advice.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion or duress that would invalidate the release, noting the applicant understood its significance and received sufficient consideration.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The 81-year-old applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondent, a park corporation.

The dispute arose after the respondent converted its property into a condominium corporation, designated the applicant's lot as open space, and ultimately terminated her membership for unpaid maintenance fees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own suspicion connecting the respondent's actions to her age or a protected Code ground.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, apparently on consent of the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing at this stage.

Finally, the Tribunal directed both parties to comply with their overdue disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, warning of potential consequences for non-compliance.

The respondent brought requests for orders during proceedings to strike portions of the Application, exclude certain documents and witness statements, and compel document disclosure.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs and excluded evidence relating to other employees' family status accommodation requests, finding them irrelevant to the applicant's specific case and likely to unnecessarily lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents, including those related to custody arrangements and mitigation efforts, subject to redactions for privacy.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

They argued the decision conflicted with established case law regarding spousal financial obligations under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and the Family Law Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicants were merely attempting to re-argue their case and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.