Esi Codjoe

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application and was scheduled for an in-person hearing.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and an electronic hearing due to illness, providing a medical note that the adjudicator found lacked specific details regarding her limitations.

The requests were denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, the respondents requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to attend without sufficient justification and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging housing discrimination based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence, including medical documents and text messages, warranted a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response and indicated the Application would continue to be processed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services, specifically regarding the denial and delayed processing of a Housing Stabilization Fund request.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own belief to connect the alleged unfair treatment to his disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging disability discrimination by his union.

The applicant reiterated previous arguments and raised new allegations regarding ongoing unfair treatment and issues with his employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case or raise new issues that could have been raised earlier, and that there were no compelling reasons to depart from the principle of finality.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, but provided no explanation, instead restating his original arguments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case and that none of the exceptions in the Rules or Practice Direction were met.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

As the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent hospital produced redacted patient records for the hearing and requested direction from the Tribunal regarding their use.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the applicant to secure the records, restrict their use solely to the application, prohibit disclosure to anyone other than her advisor or expert witnesses, and ensure their destruction at the conclusion of the proceeding, in accordance with the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The applicant in an age discrimination case brought requests for the production of prescription sales data, employee contact information, and summonses for third parties including the Ontario College of Pharmacists and CBC News.

The applicant also requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and a determination of the respondents' corporate relationships.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding that the requested documents and information were not arguably relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant's employment was terminated due to age, and that a Tribunal Inquiry was unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of dental services based on disability.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application and, alternatively, deferral pending the outcome of a concurrent complaint to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the accommodation and discriminatory labelling claims to proceed to a merits hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer the application, finding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act would render any factual findings from the College proceeding inadmissible at the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application against a university pre-law society alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association based on age, gender, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The applicant claimed he was denied a position due to his year of study and faced reprisal after his sexual advances toward the club president were rebuffed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute violations of the Human Rights Code, noting that the Code protects against sexual harassment but does not grant a right to make unwanted sexual advances without consequence.

The applicant in a contravention of settlement application requested an extension of time to file hearing documents, an adjournment of the hearing, and that the hearing be completed in one day.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to substantiate her inability to proceed or to justify the requested accommodations.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, creed, and association in the context of employment and a university placement.

The respondents jointly requested that the Tribunal consolidate the applications.

The applicant objected, arguing each respondent discriminated against her in a different way.

The Tribunal found the applications raised substantially the same facts and issues and that there was a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

Following a summary hearing, all other allegations were dismissed.

The applicant subsequently failed to provide prehearing disclosure and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant, including a Case Assessment Direction requiring pre-hearing disclosure and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's emails or directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the remaining $3,250.00 of a $4,000.00 settlement.

The respondent admitted non-payment but argued it should be released from the obligation because the corporation had ceased operations and its accounts were frozen.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's financial status did not provide a legal basis to release it from its settlement obligations.

The Application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding amount with pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Tribunal also amended the respondent's corporate name on consent.

The applicant and corporate respondent filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of witness contact information and arguably relevant documents, including medical records, notes, and university files.

Both parties consented to the production requests.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents and information.

The Tribunal denied the parties' requests to expedite or delay the standard disclosure timelines under Rules 16 and 17, finding no compelling reasons to deviate from the rules.

The respondent failed to comply with her disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, despite a prior case assessment direction.

After an unsuccessful mediation/adjudication attempt, the respondent requested a 4 to 6 week extension to provide disclosure.

The applicant argued for a shorter period of 14 to 21 days.

The Tribunal found that a 4 to 6 week extension would unduly delay the hearing process and instead ordered the respondent to deliver her arguably relevant documents by October 9, 2017, and her witness and document lists by October 16, 2017, failing which she may be prevented from presenting evidence at the hearing.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a person with a cognitive disability, filed an application alleging that his union discriminated against him by refusing to allow his representative to discuss his specific employment concerns at a general union meeting.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the union's refusal to discuss his individual matters at a general meeting to his disability.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider previous or pending decisions involving the applicant.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to accommodation on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

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

The Tribunal found that the respondents were neither the landlord, the landlord's agent, nor occupants of the same building where the alleged conduct occurred.

As the respondents did not fall within the categories of persons listed in section 2(2) of the Human Rights Code, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.