Geneviève Debané

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She alleged that the adjudicator was biased, denied her the opportunity to present evidence, and failed to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found the allegations of bias to be fabricated and unsupported by evidence.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was given the opportunity to identify her evidence at the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant requested that her human rights application alleging employment discrimination be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration proceeding.

The respondent hospital consented to the deferral, noting there were four outstanding grievances, two of which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed and ordered the application deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the union's conduct, including its refusal to pursue a grievance on her behalf, to her disability.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant's representative, an unlicensed individual, failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions, including an order to explain the exemption permitting him to act as a representative and to explain the failure to file a response to a Request for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the representative repeatedly failed to comply with its rules and directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the representative removed and directed the applicant to provide current contact information and confirm his intention to proceed with the application, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing due to scheduling conflicts and the need for more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request, citing untimeliness and the applicant's disrespectful conduct, and sought orders to stop the applicant from sending derogatory messages.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns that the applicant might not be able to effectively participate, which would cause further delay.

The Tribunal declined to address the respondent's requests for orders within the context of the adjournment request, directing the respondent to file a separate Request for Order.

The applicant filed seven applications against former co-workers.

The Tribunal previously directed a preliminary hearing to determine if Minutes of Settlement precluded the applications.

The applicant and the intervenor, Lakehead University, disputed the disclosure of the confidential Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal ordered redacted portions of the Minutes of Settlement to be disclosed to the respondents so they could make submissions on their defence.

A request to intervene by a former applicant was denied, but he was granted limited rights as an affected party.

The applicant's request to remove the intervenor's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order for the production of the applicant's medical records and mitigation documents.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant's representative to identify the category or exemption permitting him to act as a representative, as he had failed to respond to previous Tribunal directions.

The applicant requested to reschedule the hearing of her human rights application because her husband was transferred to England for a nine-month project.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was untimely and the delay was unreasonable.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant only recently learned of the transfer, the request was made more than five months before the scheduled hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking that the applicant particularize the allegations of employment discrimination and harassment made in her application and disclose all arguably relevant documents.

The applicant did not respond to the requests.

The Tribunal found the requested particulars reasonably necessary for the respondent to respond to the application and ordered the applicant to provide detailed particulars and produce all arguably relevant documents within 14 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicants requested an order to remove the law firm representing the respondent union as solicitors of record, alleging a conflict of interest because the firm had represented them during the grievance process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the law firm was retained by the union and no solicitor-client relationship existed between the firm and the individual applicants.

The applicant filed an Application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for potential lack of jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage.

The applicant also requested deferral pending an arbitration hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the Application delivered to the respondents and directed them to file submissions on the deferral request before requiring a formal Response.

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

The Ontario Provincial Police Association requested intervenor status, which the respondents did not oppose, though they argued the extent of participation should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal granted the intervention request, leaving the scope of participation to the hearing adjudicator.

The respondents also requested dismissal of part of the application under section 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process, citing previous Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal deferred this request to the hearing adjudicator, finding it inefficient to hear it at this stage.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance process initiated under a collective agreement.

All parties filed submissions confirming that the applicant had withdrawn the grievance.

As a result, the Tribunal found no basis to defer the application, ordered that it continue to be processed, and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the reprisal allegations had already been added to and dealt with in a previous application.

After the applicant failed to respond to a request for clarification regarding his intention to proceed, the Tribunal dismissed the duplicative application.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment against her employer and union.

The employer added the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as a respondent.

The WSIB filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as a party, noting there were no allegations against it in the application or response.

The applicant consented to the removal, and the employer provided no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the WSIB as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union, acting as the applicant's bargaining agent, sought intervenor status, which was granted on consent.

The union and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of four outstanding grievances related to the same facts and human rights issues.

Over the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that it is generally appropriate to defer when a parallel grievance process is underway to avoid concurrent proceedings and contradictory decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to file hearing materials and confirm attendance at the scheduled hearing, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to comply with the orders.

The Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, acting as next friend for his child, filed a human rights application against the Office of the Children's Lawyer and its clinical investigator regarding a custody report.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing to bring the application because he did not have custody of the child.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the contact information of the child's custodial mother so she could be given notice and make submissions on the standing issue, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction because it did not set out specific incidents of alleged discrimination related to a Code ground.

The applicant filed written submissions in response, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex under section 23 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage, ordering the Application to be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted as its interests were at stake.

The applicant requested to defer the application indefinitely for personal reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding no other proceeding was dealing with the matter and it would not delay the process indefinitely.