Geneviève Debané

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services because of her place of origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

She claimed that her foreign educational credentials from Germany were unfairly evaluated, resulting in a lower placement category (A2), and that the evaluation process adversely impacted individuals with foreign degrees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin.

The documentary evidence showed she was placed in the A2 category because her degree average was less than a B-, a standard applied equally to domestic degrees.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

He alleged the decision was fraudulent and that the adjudicator was biased because of a discrepancy regarding the date his submissions were received.

The Tribunal found the date discrepancy was irrelevant to the dismissal for delay and that the applicant failed to establish any criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation of bias, finding no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the allegations appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadlines.

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing and sent notices to the applicant, which were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal subsequently emailed the applicant directing him to provide updated contact information and confirm his intention to proceed, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence or directions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The intervenor, Loblaw Companies Limited, brought a request to intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination against its employee.

The request was unopposed by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the intervenor had a significant interest in the proceeding because the allegations arose during the course of the respondent's employment and the requested remedies could impact the intervenor.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer the application because a grievance under a collective agreement was ongoing based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that it was most fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applicant's human rights application because of an ongoing grievance arbitration proceeding based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that arbitration could take years.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that it is the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and concurrent proceedings could lead to contrary findings.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness was unavailable to attend the first day due to a graduate program orientation.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, noting that the applicant's evidence would likely consume the first day and the corporate respondent could select another employee to instruct counsel.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights complaint.

The applicant claimed the respondent's employees made disparaging remarks, falsely stated she was terminated, and disclosed the settlement amount.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the Minutes of Settlement only imposed confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations on the applicant, not the respondent, and the resignation clause did not prevent the respondent from stating she was terminated.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation business, and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, noting a previous decision confirming the respondent's federal status, and dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Royal Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is federally-regulated and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following a favourable decision from the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The respondents opposed, noting they were appealing to the WSIAT, and requested the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a cross-request for an interim remedy alleging abusive conduct by the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the WSIAT appeal and dismissed both parties' requests for orders, finding no vexatious or abusive conduct by either side.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging unfair discipline by the respondent police services board.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior release, or alternatively to defer it pending an ongoing Police Services Act proceeding.

At the preliminary hearing, both parties opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found that the concurrent proceedings involved overlapping facts and allegations, raising the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Police Services Act proceeding.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding regarding his termination and severance pay.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct disentitling him to severance, and did not address or make findings inconsistent with the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which was denied.

The respondents also requested the removal of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents and capable of satisfying any remedial order.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and age against Air Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that Air Canada is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking or business subject to federal regulation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against a fraternity and a university.

The university requested a deferral pending its internal investigation, which the Tribunal denied because an internal investigation is not a proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The fraternity's request for a summary hearing was also denied.

The applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to vary remedies and add a local fraternity chapter as a respondent was granted.

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

The union requested to intervene, which was granted as it had an interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding based on the same facts.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delays and fair representation, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, noting the applicant could request reactivation if the grievance was not dealt with diligently.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal and to increase the monetary remedies sought.

The respondent had not participated in the proceeding and was previously deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it would not delay the proceeding or cause prejudice to the non-participating respondent.