Geneviève Debané

The applicant, a high school student, alleged discrimination and reprisal after a teacher punished the entire class for a disruption.

The applicant refused the punishment, was sent home, and subsequently withdrew from the course, alleging racism.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the teacher's conduct to any Code grounds, and the applicant was treated the same as other students who refused the punishment.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the personal respondent, a clinical manager, from a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the motion, noting that the corporate respondent accepted full responsibility for the alleged conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party.

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

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against the personal respondent, the President of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discriminatory conduct against the President and that he was named solely because of his position.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success against him and dismissed the application as against the President.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to add individual respondents to her human rights application.

She argued that the individuals needed to be added as parties so they could be compelled to testify.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely repeated previous arguments and that individuals do not need to be respondents to be summoned as witnesses.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent because her doctor was no longer available to testify on the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could testify on the first day of the hearing and that additional hearing dates would likely be required regardless.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal issued two Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to provide documents, witness lists, and will-say statements, and warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction, as it initially failed to set out specific incidents of discrimination related to a Code ground.

In response, the self-represented applicant provided detailed submissions alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, and marital status.

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

The applicants filed separate human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sexual orientation.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated as they related to the same events.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and ordered the applications consolidated to proceed to a single hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance regarding the same alleged failure to accommodate, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and union made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant, a seasonal worker at a sandstone quarry, suffered a workplace injury and received WSIB benefits.

He alleged that the employer failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him by not recalling him for the following season.

The employer claimed the applicant had resigned.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence more credible, concluding he did not resign and that the employer's decision not to reemploy him was motivated by his disability.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages against the employer and its business manager jointly and severally, but dismissed the claim for lost wages and the claim against a related company.

The applicant, a union representative, filed a human rights application alleging his termination was discriminatory and a reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a grievance arbitration that reinstated the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a full opportunity to raise human rights issues during the arbitration but failed to do so.

Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Figliola, the Tribunal held that permitting the application to proceed would result in relitigation and deny finality.

The Tribunal also found the Charter did not apply to the private employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding visual acuity requirements for driver's licenses and the Licence Appeal Tribunal's (LAT) failure to process his appeal.

The Tribunal previously issued a Case Assessment Direction noting potential lack of jurisdiction over LAT due to judicial immunity and required submissions.

The applicant failed to provide submissions, so the application against LAT was dismissed as abandoned.

The Ministry of Transportation asserted the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Highway Traffic Act medical standards.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on this jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and subsequently requested to amend the application to attach numerous documents.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, noting that an amendment is for asserting new allegations of discrimination, not for introducing documentary evidence, and that the applicant failed to set out the material facts of any new allegations.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a compliant request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations due to their failure to file a response.

The respondents subsequently filed a complete response, and the applicant filed a reply.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make written submissions on whether the interim decision should be reconsidered.

Finding no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal reconsidered the interim decision and ordered that the respondents be permitted to fully participate at the upcoming hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the conclusion of an internal investigation under their corporate policy.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, holding that a private internal employer investigation is not a 'proceeding' under the Human Rights Code, as it does not require compliance with procedural fairness and is not an independent decision-making process that could lead to inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed Requests for Order during Proceedings seeking the production of documents and to add five individual police officers as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, noting the respondent had been granted an extension of time to deliver its arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the individual officers as respondents, applying the Smyth and Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found no compelling reason to add them, as the allegations did not raise issues like harassment, the Board accepted vicarious liability for their conduct, and there was no issue regarding the Board's ability to implement any potential remedy.

The respondent requested particulars and early production of documents prior to filing its Response to a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained sufficient information for the respondent to identify the alleged facts and legal issues and file a Response.

The request for early production of documents was denied as premature, as there were no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the standard disclosure rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

Following the issuance of an arbitration decision, the applicant requested to proceed with the application, add additional respondents including the union, and order production of the union's grievance file.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed but scheduled a hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and whether the union should be added as a respondent.

The requests to add individual respondents and for early document production were denied.

The respondents Marie Noël Lefèbvre and Hôpital Montfort brought a request for an order to remove Ms. Lefèbvre as a respondent and substitute her employer, Hôpital Montfort.

As all other parties consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the order and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant, an aboriginal person, alleged discrimination with respect to goods and services based on race, colour, and citizenship after an interaction at a car dealership.

During negotiations, the applicant stated he did not pay taxes but refused to explain why, leading to a misunderstanding with the salesperson.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to identify his tax-exempt status at the time, and the respondents were willing to honour it once informed.