Geneviève Debané

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent, who subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal previously held the application in abeyance.

The applicant advised that the stay remained in effect but expressed a desire to proceed once lifted.

The Tribunal ordered the application to continue to be held in abeyance and directed the applicant to provide an update within seven months.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment against an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent, the City of Ottawa, added itself as a respondent, accepted vicarious liability for the individual's actions, and requested the individual's removal.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the individual respondent, finding his participation unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The Tribunal also scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the City's request to dismiss the application based on prior Minutes of Settlement and potential delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegation of a discriminatory wage rate was untimely and did not constitute a series of incidents with the termination allegation.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his termination was linked to a prohibited ground or was a reprisal for previously raising a human rights issue.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age, ancestry, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, and sex after the Ministry of the Attorney General failed to notify the Ministry of Transportation that his traffic conviction had been quashed on appeal.

This failure resulted in increased insurance premiums.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that the administrative error was motivated by discrimination was based on pure speculation with no factual underpinning.

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

The applicant requested an order compelling the respondent to provide more detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's witness statements lacked particularity and failed to identify the proposed evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to deliver and file detailed witness statements particularizing the proposed evidence of each witness.

The applicant requested an order compelling a witness to attend the hearing, or alternatively, that the Tribunal request a bench warrant from the Superior Court.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a properly served summons already compels attendance, and that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the party seeking the witness's attendance must apply directly to the Superior Court for a bench warrant.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response on consent.

The applicant opposed an adjournment of the hearing, arguing that the respondent's former legal representative gave conflicting and inconsistent reasons for seeking the adjournment.

The Tribunal held that even if these submissions had been considered prior to the initial interim decision granting the adjournment, the hearing would still have been adjourned.

The respondent was left without legal representation through no fault of his own and had insufficient notice to retain new counsel.

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

The respondent, applicant, and the applicant's union all requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an outstanding grievance and arbitration proceeding.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his legal representative was served with a subpoena and became unavailable.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances, noting the respondent was diligent in seeking new representation but had insufficient time.

The adjournment was granted in advance of the hearing to save costs, and new deadlines were set for the respondent to file hearing materials.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings regarding the personal respondent's failure to file hearing materials, including a witness list and documents.

The personal respondent did not respond to the Tribunal's direction.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the personal respondent to deliver and file the required materials by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in being barred from relying on documents or calling witnesses at the hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file hearing materials within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to address preliminary issues in four related applications alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted a request to substitute M.D. as the next friend for the minor applicant E.D. One applicant, Rebecca Goldshmidt, failed to attend the conference or confirm her intention to proceed, resulting in the dismissal of her application as abandoned.

The Tribunal consolidated the three remaining applications, finding common issues of fact and law against the same respondents, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction and an Interim Decision ordering him to deliver documents and confirm his attendance at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant abandoned the Application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, claiming she was denied a position after stating she could not work on Saturdays.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents related to the job competition and an order compelling the respondent to comply with Tribunal rules regarding document and witness lists.

The respondent failed to file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the respondent's defence that other candidates were better qualified, and ordered the respondent to produce the documents with personal contact information redacted, and to comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

The respondents raised the issue of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that a later conversation about food preferences constituted a more recent incident of discrimination, and alternatively, that the delay was incurred in good faith because he was attempting to resolve the matter with his former employer.

The Tribunal found that the later conversation was not discriminatory and that ongoing settlement discussions did not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, a grocery store employee, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry and ethnic origin after she was removed from cash register duties due to her inability to speak French.

She later sought to amend her application to include a claim of discrimination based on disability, alleging a failure to accommodate a previous workplace injury.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend but dismissed the entire application following a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as language is not a protected ground and there was no evidence it was used as a proxy for ancestry or place of origin.

Furthermore, there was no evidence the applicant requested accommodation for her disability or provided medical documentation supporting her restrictions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that Ontario's visual acuity requirements for driver's licenses constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Ministry of Transportation's Response and to make submissions on jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to file the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a long-term occasional teacher, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin.

He claimed he was unfairly assigned courses he was not qualified to teach, denied support, and ultimately terminated during his probationary period because he is a visible minority from Africa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differently from other teachers hired at the same time and that his termination was due to his inability to manage his classroom, not discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing his daughter's health issues, and failed to comply with document production deadlines.

The respondent consented to the adjournment on conditions.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding insufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the delay or the failure to comply with the Rules, and ordered the applicant to produce documents and confirm his attendance.