Genevieve Debane

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming the respondent harassed him by requesting documentation for his continued disability benefits and failed to accommodate him by not assisting with his CPP appeal.

During a summary hearing held by teleconference, the applicant objected to the respondent's submissions and hung up the phone after the adjudicator ruled the hearing would proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant walking out of the hearing.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as requiring a claimant to provide documentation to support continued entitlement to insurance benefits is not discriminatory.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The corporate respondent had previously obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which the applicant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the appeal.

After granting multiple extensions, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a further extension, finding no valid medical basis.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court appeal, as the allegations significantly related to the applicant's interactions with the landlord.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled for May 19, 2016.

The applicant requested an extension two days prior, which was denied, and the applicant was informed the issue could be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision (2016 HRTO 566) that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the reconsideration request did not address any of the reasons for the original dismissal, but instead included irrelevant letters involving a third party.

Finding no basis to reconsider the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a bank, a real estate brokerage, and the law firm representing the bank in a mortgage dispute.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the law firm.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the conduct of a lawyer representing another party in a legal proceeding, and therefore no service relationship existed between the applicant and the law firm.

The application against the law firm was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, family status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had already filed a claim in Small Claims Court against the respondents raising substantially similar issues.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits a person from seeking remedies for human rights violations in both a court and the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to commence a breach of settlement application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code without using the required Tribunal forms.

She also requested an interim remedy to stop an eviction proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board and asked to expedite the matter.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to accept the applicant's hand-written documents as a valid application due to her unique circumstances.

However, the Tribunal removed non-signatory respondents, denied the request for an interim remedy because it lacks jurisdiction to interfere with LTB proceedings, and denied the request to expedite.

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

Although both parties agreed to mediation, the applicant failed to provide available dates.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal warning letter regarding abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Cornwall Court and a prosecutor during a traffic ticket prosecution.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter, as the decisions of presiding judges are protected by adjudicative immunity and the actions of prosecutors are protected by prosecutorial immunity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications against a restaurant, a children's aid society, and a police services board, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations were devoid of particulars, lacked a link to a prohibited ground under the Code, and were based on general feelings of unfairness rather than evidence.

The applications were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misapplied the law, introduced new issues, and exhibited bias due to direct email communications from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal found no material errors in the original decision and concluded that a reasonable observer would not apprehend bias from the email communication, which was promptly redirected to the Registrar.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that his appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) would not be heard for at least a year.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that reactivating the application while the WSIAT appeal was ongoing could lead to contrary findings of fact and decisions.

The application remains deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceeding.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to correct its business name and remove two of its employees as individual respondents.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the unopposed request, removing the individual employees as respondents and correcting the corporate respondent's legal name.

The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking to permit the student, T.A., to return to the respondent school effective September 1, 2015.

The student had not been enrolled at the school since October 14, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant waited over ten months to file the application, just one week before the start of classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the urgency was self-created and it was not appropriate to grant the extraordinary relief of an interim remedy in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his former employer, Chrysler, and his union, Unifor.

Chrysler terminated the applicant's employment following an investigation into workplace drugs, and the union subsequently withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application against Chrysler was untimely and if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against Chrysler was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

Subsequently, the applicant commenced a civil action against the respondent that included allegations of discrimination and harassment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Code because the civil claim sought remedies for Code infringements and had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction to allow the applicant to amend the civil claim to proceed with the application.

The applicant brought a human rights application against the respondents.

Following the first day of hearing, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the mutual production of documents.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment insurance records, income documents, and evidence of mitigation efforts.

The personal respondent was ordered to produce notes and records relating to the applicant's employment.

The applicant requested an order to permit three medical witnesses to testify by telephone conference during the upcoming hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, citing a lack of detailed witness statements and insufficient time for cross-examination.

The Tribunal granted the request but ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements in advance, which the witnesses will adopt as their evidence-in-chief, to ensure the respondents have adequate time for cross-examination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing his requests to transfer to a ground floor unit in 2008 and 2010.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of redacted tenancy agreements and waiting lists.

The Tribunal declined to order production, accepting the respondents' representation that the documents had already been produced or no longer existed.

The Tribunal also noted that the 2008 allegations appeared to be outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on timeliness prior to the hearing.