Geneviève Debané

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

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been resolved through a grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve grievances that formed the substance of the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and re-litigation of issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of a hearing disability.

He claimed that the Small Claims Court's requirement that he pay for written transcripts before being allowed to listen to the audio recordings was discriminatory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the requirement to pay for written transcripts did not adversely impact the applicant, as his hearing impediment did not interfere with his ability to read.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued she did not receive the Notice of Hearing because she had moved and relied on a relative to forward her mail, rather than updating her address with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant should have been more diligent, she established exceptional circumstances as she did not receive the notice.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the original decision was set aside.

The applicant, a minor represented by her next friend, filed an application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal in employment after a co-worker pushed her and yelled at her.

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

The Tribunal found that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be interpreted as sexual harassment and there was no evidence linking the incident to the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of establishing reprisal, as the applicant had not claimed a right under the Code prior to her termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding (RFOP) seeking the production of documents and an extension of time to file hearing materials in an age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the initial document request and noted that the applicant had not filed the required Form 10 for a subsequent request.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for both parties to file their hearing materials and directed them to cease copying the Tribunal on unnecessary correspondence.

The applicant, a preferred temporary employee with a disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by failing to award him a full-time forklift position, removing a modified work assignment, delaying information to the WSIB, and failing to provide timely ROEs and T4s.

The Tribunal found that the payroll and WSIB delays were due to administrative issues and the seasonal nature of the work, not discrimination.

The modified work assignment ended due to a seasonal reduction in product demand.

Regarding the forklift position, the Tribunal found that the successful candidate had more experience and that the applicant could not perform the essential lifting duties of the role due to his medical restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to file written submissions or contact the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, by the respondent police services board.

The allegations stemmed from the police's handling of a neighbour dispute and the applicant's subsequent arrest for violating a peace bond.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the police's actions and her age or perceived mental health issues, nor any evidence of reprisal for claiming a Code right.

The corporate respondent brought a request for an order during proceeding to remove all named personal respondents from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents, who were its employees or agents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was fully capable of satisfying any remedial order and no prejudice would result from the removal.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The respondent requested the removal of two named individual respondents and the production of the applicant's health file prior to mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for their actions and capable of satisfying any remedial order.

The Tribunal denied both parties' requests for document production as premature, noting that the parties had not yet attended mediation and the rules provide for document exchange 21 days after receipt of the Notice of Hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, relating to denials of tenure track positions in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2011.

The respondent requested that the pre-2011 allegations be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2011 allegations did not form a 'series of incidents' with the timely 2011 allegations due to a significant temporal gap and differing grounds of discrimination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to demonstrate she had no reason to inquire about her rights.

The pre-2011 allegations were dismissed as untimely, and the matter was referred to mediation.

The applicant, who has mental health disabilities, alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against her by failing to lay charges against her ex-boyfriend for sexual assault and against her neighbour for a dispute.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the applicant's disability was a factor in the policing outcomes, noting her vague recollection of events and the appropriateness of the police response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by Crown prosecutors during a regulatory prosecution.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on whether the applications fell within its jurisdiction, specifically regarding prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the prosecutors' conduct in court and their positions on motions fell within the core of prosecutorial immunity.

The applications were dismissed as the Tribunal cannot be used to relitigate issues from court proceedings or review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment as a call centre agent due to absences related to her disability, dysmenorrhea.

The employer maintained she was terminated during her probationary period for unreliability, including unexplained absences, lateness, and dishonesty regarding a 'family emergency'.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting her own doctor testified she was not menstruating or suffering from dysmenorrhea on the days she claimed to be absent for that reason.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her termination and her alleged disability, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnic origin, and disability.

She argued that her evidence was not given due consideration and raised procedural issues, including the adjudicator's refusal to allow her to testify under hypnosis or via a lie detector test.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely re-arguing positions already considered and failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance and arbitration proceedings dealing with the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to address all claims, including human rights issues.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that medical conditions affected his ability to file on time.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents, leaving the final determination on the delay issue for a later stage.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding dealing with the same facts and allegations of Code discrimination.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status and deferred the application, finding that it would be most fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings that could lead to inconsistent decisions, as the grievance arbitrator has jurisdiction to enforce the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), naming both her former employer and her direct supervisor as respondents.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove the supervisor as a personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions and undertaking to make her available to testify.

The applicant did not contest the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to maintain the supervisor as a personal respondent and ordered her removed from the proceeding.

The applicant, a real estate agent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences and association, claiming he was prevented from suing a developer for unpaid commissions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than two years after the last alleged incident of discrimination (a court decision dismissing his civil claim).

The Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as out of time.