Geneviève Debané

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed case management issues.

The applicant's vague request for an order to add parties was denied for lack of information.

The respondent's request to adjourn the hearing due to the unavailability of two key witnesses was also denied, as the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The Tribunal further ordered both parties to comply with document disclosure and witness list rules.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application, alleging bias, incompetence, and hostility by the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no details to support his allegation of bias and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision to seek the anonymization of his name in the style of cause.

He argued that his uncommon name and the mention of his disability could lead to stigmatization.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, emphasizing the fundamental principle of an open justice system and noting that the previous decision did not specify the nature of his disability.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from its usual practice of publicizing parties' names.

The applicant filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers.

The applicant's former employer, Lakehead University, filed a request to intervene, arguing that the applications were an abuse of process because they were barred by a release in previously executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal granted the University's request to intervene, finding it had a direct interest in the proceedings and the remedies sought.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file the Minutes of Settlement and directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or due to delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement by the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the exact same alleged breach, which the Commission had dismissed as vexatious and lacking a reasonable basis.

As the subject matter was identical to the previous complaint, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that he had recently retained counsel who required time to review the file.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample time to obtain legal representation and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The applicant, a Seventh-day Adventist, applied for a New Business Clerk position at the respondent's call centre.

During a telephone pre-screen interview, she informed the recruiter that she could not work on Saturdays due to her religious beliefs.

The applicant was subsequently screened out and not offered an in-person interview.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's creed was a factor in the respondent's decision not to advance her in the hiring process, drawing an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to produce documents relating to other candidates.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $4,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a return to work brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's long-term disability file.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's defence.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain his LTD file and deliver all non-privileged documents to the respondent, along with a privilege log for any withheld documents, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and disability.

The respondent requested to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that withdrawn grievances had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting that withdrawn grievances do not satisfy section 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the Union's request to intervene, finding it had a significant interest in the matter due to the applicant's allegations of unsupportive union representation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, 7.5 years after his dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the extreme delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his drug addiction and subsequent rehabilitation, as well as ignorance of the Tribunal's existence.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had not suffered a reoccurrence of his disability for over four years and failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing his rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment almost two months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was due to worsening illness, assisting his mother, and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a debilitating condition preventing a timely filing, and noted the applicant was able to participate in other legal proceedings during the same period.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a Notice of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal previously issued interim decisions holding the application in abeyance.

As the stay of proceedings remains in effect, the Tribunal ordered that the application continue to be held in abeyance and directed the applicant to provide an update within one year.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following a decision by the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondent employer opposed the reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the grievance process appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application but ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 and whether the claims against the respondent union have no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an order during the proceeding to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal regarding a telephone conversation.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting it was made many months in advance of the hearing, and directed the respondent to file a response to the new allegation.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's occupational health file and long-term disability benefits file before filing its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request for the internal occupational health file, finding exceptional circumstances because privacy legislation prevented the respondent from accessing its own arguably relevant medical documents.

The request for the external benefits file from Desjardins was dismissed as it was not necessary for filing a meaningful Response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

In her Reply, the applicant requested that three individuals be removed as respondents to the application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the removal of the specified respondents, and directed that the style of cause be amended accordingly.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding dealing with the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances, noting that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to address human rights claims.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm their intention to proceed and to file documents and a witness list.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal or the respondents.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was denied permanent full-time employment after a medical leave in 2002.

She later amended the application to include allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety.

The original allegations were dismissed for delay, as the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2005 and the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay.

The reprisal allegations were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant had no evidence to establish that the employer's disciplinary actions were intended as retaliation for filing the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application after the evidentiary portion of the hearing had concluded.

The respondents requested that terms be imposed, including the return of documents and a condition barring future applications on the same allegations.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, ordered the applicant to return or destroy documents provided by the respondents, and noted that a future application on the same allegations would be an abuse of process.