Geneviève Debané

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated based on ethnic origin and reprisal.

Both parties objected to deferring the application despite four outstanding grievances, including one regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a university professor, filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers alleging academic mobbing and reprisal.

The respondents and the intervenor university argued the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving all past and future human rights complaints arising from the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found the language of the settlement was clear and unambiguous, precluding the new applications.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, filed a human rights application on behalf of his minor daughter against the Office of the Children's Lawyer and its investigator, alleging wrongful actions during a family court custody dispute.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to act as a litigation guardian because he had a personal interest in the outcome of the litigation and was in a conflict of interest with his daughter's interests regarding custody.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, the City of Toronto, and his union.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer respondents on consent, pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's conduct to a discriminatory ground.

During the course of a hearing, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to immediately locate and produce a specific email sent by the applicant on October 21, 2011.

The respondent was directed to bring copies of the email to the continuation of the hearing the following morning.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add her union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), as a respondent to her human rights application against her employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any events or factual foundation that could give rise to a finding of liability against the union under the Human Rights Code.

Dissatisfaction with the union's representation is not, in and of itself, a basis for adding it as a respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act claim.

The applicant's representative subsequently advised the Tribunal that the request was filed in error and that the WSIA proceeding was still ongoing.

The respondent agreed that the application should remain deferred.

The Tribunal declined to reactivate the application, ordering that it remain deferred pending the final determination of the WSIA claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the applicant alleged discriminatory incidents, including a transfer to another location, that occurred within one year of filing.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction warning that failure to respond might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former graduate student, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate her disabilities.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the university's internal academic appeal process, which culminated in a decision by the Vice-Provost, had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Provost was not acting pursuant to any statutory authority that conferred concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Code.

As such, the internal appeal was not a proceeding that could bar the application under section 45.1.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and add her former employer as a respondent.

The request was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the amendments were sought expeditiously prior to mediation and that the proposed respondent could be subject to Tribunal orders as the former employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former spouse, alleging discrimination with respect to contract based on family and marital status during subsequent legal proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Code does not govern private relationships between parties, including marriage, and the applicant failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The parties filed a joint request for a Consent Order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the removal of all personal respondents from the application and closing the file.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of documents, including medical records, for all staff of the Wastewater Department and the CAO.

The respondent objected on the basis of relevance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that ordering such broad disclosure without a demonstrated nexus to the issues in dispute would amount to a fishing expedition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, claiming his employment was terminated partly because he had filed a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding concurrent proceedings.

The respondents sought to defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing appeal before the WSIB regarding the same termination and reemployment rights.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were almost identical and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid duplication and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Superior Court of Justice failed to accommodate his hearing impairment during a family court case conference.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the presiding judge had already addressed the issue of the applicant's accommodation during the court proceeding, and that the proper mechanism for review was an appeal to the Divisional Court, not a human rights application.

The Tribunal also noted that the doctrine of judicial immunity protects judicial actors from human rights complaints regarding their adjudicative duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding the transfer of his pension entitlements following a change in union representation.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdictional issues, including delay.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2007, but the application was not filed until 2012.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed multiple Requests for Orders during Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend her application, exclude documents, and obtain production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to exclude documents and anonymize her name.

The Tribunal also denied the request to amend the application to include allegations post-dating her termination, finding they did not fall within the employment ground and would delay the hearing.

However, the Tribunal permitted amendments relating to allegations that occurred during her employment.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for further document production from the respondent, denied the request to allow all applicant witnesses to testify by telephone, and denied the request to remove the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce unredacted copies of arguably relevant documents, including mitigation and subsequent employment records, and to provide revised witness statements complying with the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent was directed not to summons the applicant's current employer at this time.