Eli Fellman

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, colour, place of origin, and race.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for being untimely or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After the Tribunal inquired about the status of the grievance, the union advised that the parties had entered into minutes of settlement resolving all disputes, including the Tribunal application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiries.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of a disability, specifically electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

He claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his disability by reducing electromagnetic fields from underground electrical cables.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant might be able to establish EHS as a disability, there was no reasonable prospect he could prove a link between his symptoms and the respondent's underground cables, given the lack of expert medical or scientific evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant argued that the SBT committed discriminatory acts by applying discriminatory legislation and sending her back to her country of origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any compelling and extraordinary circumstances or meet the criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that she was denied employment opportunities in the provincial government as a reprisal for a 2002 human rights complaint she had filed against the Ontario Securities Commission.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's theory of a wide-ranging government conspiracy was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin after receiving poor customer service when attempting to order a replacement stroller wheel.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that she received poor service due to her accent was purely speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the claim against the manufacturer was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The organizational respondent had terminated the applicant's employment, and the applicant's union filed a grievance seeking damages for human rights breaches.

The union later withdrew the grievance, but the applicant appealed that decision.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the determination of the applicant's appeal to the union and the potential completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application alleging sex and gender identity discrimination.

The proposed amendments included additional allegations against employees, details regarding her transfer, and allegations of being forced to perform physically demanding tasks while pregnant.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments would unduly expand the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegations were related to the original grounds and that the respondent would not be prejudiced as it could file an amended response.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of sex, claiming the respondents failed to charge his doctor with sexual assault.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the respondent Crown Attorney on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The applicant opposed the dismissal, arguing the Crown Attorney was partial and had a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal found that the decision not to proceed with criminal charges falls squarely within a prosecutor's core duties and is protected by prosecutorial immunity.

The application was dismissed against the Crown Attorney.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional details about her relationship with the personal respondent and to add an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents objected on the basis that the applicant failed to file a separate schedule of proposed amendments as previously directed.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were reasonably clear from the request and that there was no prejudice to the respondents, who were permitted to file an amended response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the City of Windsor Employment and Social Services, and the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the Social Benefits Tribunal on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

Finding that the allegations related to the execution of adjudicative duties and decision-making, the Tribunal dismissed the application as against the Social Benefits Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant had filed three grievances through his union alleging unjust suspension, harassment, discrimination, and unjust termination, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant objected to the deferral due to the union's alleged delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap between the application and the grievances, and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.

During a hearing, the respondents raised concerns that the applicant's paralegal representative had a conflict of interest because he and the applicant resided together as roommates.

The respondents requested the representative be disqualified, arguing there was a risk of inappropriate communication during an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the concerns entirely speculative and noting that the risk of inappropriate communication was not materially greater than between any client and their legal representative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment over two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant claimed he had originally filed within the one-year limitation period and that the Tribunal lost his application, but provided no evidence of this prior filing or correspondence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a virtually identical claim with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) five months earlier.

The CHRC was currently considering whether it had jurisdiction over the respondent's Retail Division.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and deferred the application pending the CHRC's jurisdictional decision.