Geneviève Debané

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and jointly requested a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the respondent to disclose the Internet Protocol address and email address of the poster of a specific advertisement to the applicant.

The application was subsequently closed.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and provided no explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents in the areas of employment, housing, services, and contracts.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no employment or housing relationship with the respondents, and no service relationship existed during the relevant times.

The applicant failed to propose any credible evidence to support his allegations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after his driver's license was revoked and later reinstated.

The application was filed beyond the one-year time limit prescribed by section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, as ignorance of the time limit and alleged trauma did not excuse the failure to make timely inquiries.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of his WSIB/WSIAT appeal.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding had concluded and granted the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at a detention centre, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

The applicant later requested to reactivate the application, which the respondent opposed as untimely, arguing the specific charges related to the incident had concluded earlier.

The Tribunal found the request to reactivate was timely because the initial deferral order was broad enough to encompass other ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted it would have exercised its discretion to reactivate regardless, given the reasonable explanation for delay and the respondent's failure to raise the issue earlier.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant alleged that his former employer reprised against him by providing an inaccurate employment verification letter four years after his employment ended.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegation that the employer intended to reprise against the applicant, noting that the employer responded quickly and the inaccuracy was due to the insurance company ceasing to exist.

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

The respondent requested an order for the disclosure of the applicant's occupational health file and to compel the Occupational Health Nurse to answer inquiries prior to filing its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request for the production of the occupational health file, finding exceptional circumstances as the respondent could not access its own internal medical documents due to privacy legislation.

The Tribunal denied the request to compel the nurse to answer inquiries, noting it lacked the authority to compel a person to speak to a party in the preparation of a pleading.

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 inquiring whether they intended to proceed with the application.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant's union had withdrawn a grievance on her behalf, and alternatively requested deferral pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting that unilateral withdrawal of a grievance does not satisfy section 45.1.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the Application due to a lack of explanation from the respondent.

Finally, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant could not add the union as a party simply by naming them in her Reply.

La requérante allègue avoir été victime de discrimination fondée sur la race, la couleur, le lieu d'origine, l'origine ethnique et l'âge lorsque l'intimé ne lui a pas offert de poste d'infirmière autorisée ni de place dans un programme de mentorat.

Le Tribunal a tenu une audience sommaire pour déterminer si la requête avait une chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

Le Tribunal a conclu que l'intimé avait offert deux autres stages à la requérante qu'elle a refusés, et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve suggérant que le refus du poste d'infirmière était lié à un motif discriminatoire.

La requête a été rejetée car elle n'avait aucune chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The grievance proceeding concluded with a settlement in October 2012.

The applicant failed to file a Request to Reactivate the deferred application within 60 days as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain new legal representation after the Tribunal removed his previous representative.

The respondent did not take a position on the request.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, as the applicant was diligent in retaining representation and found himself unrepresented through no fault of his own.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, denied the applicant's request to exclude late-filed documents, and extended the time for the respondent to reply to a document production request.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision removing his unlicensed representative, a human resources consultant.

The Tribunal found that the representative did not fall within the Law Society's exemption for providing legal services ancillary to his profession, as the applicant was an employee, not an employer requiring HR consulting.

Furthermore, the representative had repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directives without satisfactory explanation.

The request to permit the representative to act was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application against the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The union subsequently filed a request to intervene in the ongoing application against the employer.

The applicant opposed the request, noting a pending duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that the union was an important part of the factual matrix regarding accommodation attempts and had a significant interest in the matter given the overlapping issues before the Labour Board.

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

Following the withdrawal of the applicant's counsel, the Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to respond to a request to dismiss and confirm his intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or respond to the corporate respondent's request to dismiss.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal with respect to housing, claiming that employees of the respondent condominium harassed and intimidated him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant failed to explain how he claimed or enforced a right under the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter, as there were no allegations supporting a claim of reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents and particularize her allegations, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

After the applicant failed to comply with the orders and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, and failed to communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status, the respondent requested an order for the production of the applicant's arguably relevant documents, medical records, and employment records from another employer.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents and her medical records limited to the period up to her termination date.

The applicant was also directed to inquire whether she could obtain her employment file from her other employer.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

Following the issuance of the HPARB decision, the applicant filed a timely request to reactivate.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and directed that a morning mediation be scheduled.