Geneviève Debané

The applicant, a nursing student, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin against the university and a supervisor.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if certain allegations were out of time and whether a student association report on racism was admissible.

The Tribunal ruled that allegations regarding incidents prior to September 2009 were out of time and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the report as evidence of systemic discrimination, finding it to be unreliable hearsay with low probative value.

The applicant filed numerous human rights applications against his former employer, his union, various lawyers, and several independent adjudicative bodies, all stemming from the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against the Ontario Judicial Council as having no reasonable prospect of success, noting the OJC's mandate is restricted to provincially appointed judges.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests to reconsider previous dismissals, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finally, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, restricting him from commencing further applications related to his termination without prior leave, due to his persistent pattern of filing meritless applications and engaging in vexatious conduct.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her employment was terminated while she was on medical leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondent organization, a non-profit, was experiencing severe management and financial difficulties that led to the cessation of its operations and the transfer of its remaining programs.

The termination of the applicant's employment was a consequence of the organization's closure, and there was no evidence that her disability was a factor in the decision.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and a seven-week extension of time to file hearing materials, citing the need to review newly disclosed documents.

The applicant consented to a brief extension but opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, but granted a brief extension of time for the respondent to file its materials.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination based on family status and disability sought an order for the production of documents from the respondent employer.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents, including an ergonomist assessment, performance evaluations, and relevant emails, were arguably relevant to the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the documents and make reasonable searches for the requested emails.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the non-Code related allegations regarding management and governance had no reasonable prospect of success.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred in December 2008, over a year before the application was filed in June 2010.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher with a visual impairment, filed a human rights application against his employer and his union.

The union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against it, arguing it had fairly represented the applicant and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision not to pursue a grievance was based on his disability.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, association, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to provide particulars, a witness list, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with these orders and directions, and failed to advise the Tribunal of his intentions regarding the application.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing for final closing submissions because the articling student who had carriage of the file left the firm and no other lawyers were available.

The respondent objected, arguing there were no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant had been diligent in retaining legal representation and should not be prejudiced by his representative's departure from the firm.

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

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application raised issues of fact and credibility that required a full hearing, and therefore declined to dismiss it.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's premature request for document production.

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

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal, file required hearing materials, or respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondents requested a medical certificate confirming the applicant's ability to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to respond to the request and explain her failure to attend a scheduled case conference call.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or participate in the call.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents filed Requests for Order seeking particulars, production of documents, and the removal of the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant failed to respond to the requests.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of the alleged discriminatory conduct and to file a Reply.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of removing the individual respondents until the particulars were received, and ordered both parties to confirm they had exchanged all arguably relevant documents.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application because the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure rules regarding documents and witness lists.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, but ordered the applicant to immediately deliver all arguably relevant documents, a hearing document list, and a witness list with will-say statements by a specified deadline, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a former probationary Constable with the OPP, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex.

She claimed she was not provided sufficient guidance and was assigned a female coach who lacked training, which she alleged was gender discrimination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking her treatment or termination to the alleged Code-protected grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board and one of its Vice-chairs, alleging discrimination based on race and colour in relation to a decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over tribunals in the exercise of their judicial functions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the subject-matter was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, as well as reprisal, following her return from pregnancy and parental leave and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the matter had already been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the ESO had considered and addressed the issues raised in the application, including the circumstances surrounding the applicant's termination.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal concluded that the ESO decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed the human rights application to avoid relitigation.

The applicant requested an order for the production of evidence from the Toronto Police Service, a non-party, relating to injuries sustained by two employees of the respondent.

The respondent and the employees consented to the request, provided the evidence was kept confidential and used only for the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the Toronto Police Service to produce the requested photographs and injury reports, subject to an order restricting their use and disclosure to the purposes of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and Zeynep Onen, alleging discrimination based on race and colour, and reprisal, after the Law Society closed his complaints against two lawyers.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to support a link between the respondents' conduct and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of outstanding grievances, and dismiss parts of the application based on a prior settlement and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because there was no indication the grievances were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal also declined to strike pre-settlement allegations as the applicant confirmed he was only complaining about post-settlement conduct, and deferred the section 45.1 request to the hearing on the merits.