Geneviève Debané

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice and requesting a Spanish interpreter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of family status, age, and receipt of social assistance after being denied admission to the respondent university due to his failure to provide an official transcript from a previous university where he had an outstanding debt.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no jurisdiction over 'receipt of social assistance' in the context of services, and noting the applicant provided no evidence to support his claims of discrimination based on family status or age.

Mid-hearing, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to permit a new witness to testify and to introduce two new documents regarding a proposed restructuring.

The applicant opposed the request, citing non-compliance with Tribunal rules, irrelevance, and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to allow the witness to testify, finding the evidence relevant and noting that any prejudice could be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal deferred the issues of admissibility, relevance, and weight of the two documents to the hearing, and ordered the respondents to provide unredacted copies and revised witness statements.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to amend it to include new allegations of discrimination.

The respondents consented to the amendment, and the Tribunal granted the request.

The applicant also requested the production of documents but failed to explain their relevance.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions demonstrating the arguable relevance of the requested documents before making a determination on production.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes and confirming notice was provided, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and harassment brought a request for an order during proceedings.

She sought production of all emails mentioning her name or sent to/from her work account, and the contact information of a former coworker who allegedly witnessed harassment.

The Tribunal denied the email production request, finding it overly broad and a 'fishing expedition' without specific relevance.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the full name and last known address of the material witness.

The applicant, a former teacher, filed multiple human rights applications against his former employer, his union, the union's legal counsel, his own legal counsel, and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the employer because they were filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining applications against the union, the legal counsel, and the College of Teachers, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the employer's request for an order requiring the applicant to return confidential documents, noting it lacked general injunctive powers.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination by the university and several individuals regarding academic matters and grades.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking his academic treatment to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely with respect to specific allegations concerning a molecular biology class in March 2008.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order to amend his application to increase the amount of general damages sought and to add public interest remedies.

The applicant argued that he was unrepresented when he filed the initial application and did not fully understand his rights.

The respondent opposed the request but provided no reasons for its opposition, instead reiterating its position on the merits.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment was timely, would not delay the proceedings, and would not prejudice the respondent.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the application against the employer raised credibility issues that could not be resolved at a summary hearing, and directed it to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no evidence that its refusal to file a grievance was based on discriminatory grounds.

The applicant, a teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association on the basis of sex and reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's workplace harassment complaints were not Code-related and there was no evidence to support differential treatment based on sex.

The reprisal claim also failed as the applicant had not attempted to enforce a right under the Code.

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

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for document production, permission to tape record the hearing, and case management issues regarding proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal denied production of the applicant's final exam, campus police work histories, and certain telephone records, finding them irrelevant to the bifurcated issue of liability.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce photographic evidence of an officer's alleged injuries.

The applicant was permitted to tape record the hearing on conditions.

Finally, the Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's proposed witnesses whose evidence was deemed irrelevant to liability or who failed to comply with expert witness rules.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed for delay.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and involved a matter of general importance.

The Tribunal found the applicant was merely repeating arguments and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

Following the withdrawal of her representative, the applicant failed to comply with multiple Tribunal orders and directions to produce documents and respond to the respondent's Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of two interim decisions that removed personal respondents from the application and dismissed the application against one of them.

The applicant alleged bias and disagreement with the Tribunal's interpretation of jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The Tribunal also found no basis for the applicant's allegations of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in housing against an individual respondent.

The Tribunal later added a corporate respondent.

The individual respondent filed a response, but it was unclear if it also applied to the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to clarify if the filed response applied to it, or to file its own response within 21 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal, while simultaneously pursuing a union grievance regarding his termination.

Both parties consented to deferring the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal deferred the application and deferred consideration of the respondent's request to strike portions of the application until such time as the matter might be reactivated.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

She argued that she acted in good faith, was not mentally able to file earlier, and that there should be no limitation period for harassment claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely restating arguments that were or could have been made previously, and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested an order to suspend the hearing and the directive for document disclosure, citing the excessive length of the applicant's 463-page application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for suspension, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

However, noting the excessive length of the application, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a concise descriptive document of 15 pages or less detailing how the respondents allegedly breached the Code.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination that allegedly occurred after the initial filing.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the respondent to file an amended Response within 21 days.