Geneviève Debané

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file hearing materials or confirm her attendance at the scheduled hearing, despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include remedies for maintaining seniority and compensation for wage loss.

The respondent opposed the amendment on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the respondent's request for medical records and the intervenor's request to exclude certain recordings from evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability by the respondent store during a product return.

The applicant claimed she was not accommodated for her disability, was questioned inappropriately due to her accent, and was subjected to a hostile environment when another customer yelled at her.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the store accommodated her disability by allowing her to sit, the return process was standard and completed quickly, and the employees did not subject her to adverse treatment or encourage the other customer's behavior.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment following his termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement in a Small Claims Court action regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had explicitly raised human rights issues in the civil action and that the settlement released the respondent from all claims related to the facts and issues raised in that action.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The parties submitted a consent request to adjourn a scheduled hearing because one of the respondent's witnesses was unavailable.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, consent adjournments are not granted.

The Tribunal found that the unavailability of one witness was not exceptional, as the applicant bore the onus to proceed first and other witnesses could testify.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for filing hearing documents.

Le requérant a demandé au Tribunal de réexaminer sa décision rejetant sa requête pour discrimination.

Il a allégué une crainte raisonnable de partialité de la part de l'arbitre et a soutenu que la décision était en conflit avec la jurisprudence établie en raison de l'utilisation d'un protocole de règlement.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande, concluant que le requérant n'avait pas démontré l'existence de facteurs justifiant un réexamen selon les règles du Tribunal.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application, to which the respondent consented.

The respondent subsequently requested to reschedule the hearing date, which the applicant opposed on the basis of delay and because the request was made after the 14-day period provided in the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Rescheduling.

The Tribunal granted both requests, noting the consent to the amendment and finding it appropriate to reschedule the hearing since pleadings had not yet closed and the initial notice was sent during the holiday period.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application after withdrawing his grievance.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

As the respondent and intervenor did not file a response to the request, the Tribunal was satisfied that the grievance proceeding had concluded and ordered the application to be reactivated, directing the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant, an inmate at the Thunder Bay District Jail, alleged discrimination and reprisal by correctional staff, claiming he was harassed, subjected to unsafe conditions, and called a 'political refugee'.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code, nor any evidence of an intention to reprise against the applicant.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(a) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, submitting detailed arguments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Tribunal found that the submissions did not constitute new facts that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier, and maintained that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter as it did not relate to discrimination, harassment, or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability after being denied admission to the respondents' retirement facility.

She sought an interim remedy to be admitted pending the final decision and requested to expedite the proceeding.

The respondents argued they could not provide suitable care due to her medical circumstances and comments she made.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the balance of harm and convenience favoured maintaining the status quo given the factual disputes regarding the respondents' ability to provide suitable accommodation.

The request to expedite was also refused.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against him on the basis of disability, race, and sexual orientation by failing to accommodate his mental health needs and assist with his OSAP disability bursary.

At the hearing, the Tribunal narrowed the issue to whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant falsified a medical report from his treating physician to indicate his disability was permanent rather than temporary.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had a disability requiring accommodation at the material time, as his evidence lacked credibility and the medical documents were unreliable.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested to set aside the reactivation of a human rights application, arguing that a related grievance proceeding was still ongoing.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating he had not consented to the union proceeding further with the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was still outstanding and deferred the application pending its conclusion, noting the applicant must provide written confirmation if the grievance is withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after having previously signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement upon her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the release was clear and unambiguous, and rejected the applicant's arguments that it did not explicitly mention the Human Rights Code or that she signed it under economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing a medical condition, and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking document production and an order prohibiting the respondent from using his information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the provided medical notes did not support the inability to attend.

The Tribunal also denied the RFOP, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents and the prohibition request had been addressed in a previous interim decision.

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

The respondent and intervenor union sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved by Minutes of Settlement reached at arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application because the applicant had not signed the settlement and did not implicitly accept its terms.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include her subsequent termination, and deferred the entire application pending the outcome of an expedited arbitration regarding the termination.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in services by the Ottawa Police Service, claiming he was visited by an officer and placed under surveillance following a legal dispute with a former employer.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding the applicant failed to establish he had asserted his rights under the Human Rights Code and that his link between his former employer and the respondent was pure speculation.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondent consented to the deferral, but the applicant objected, arguing the grievance would take years.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues, and the risk of inconsistent decisions if both proceedings ran concurrently.