Geneviève Debané

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed requests for security measures, production of documents, and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the security request, finding no reasonable basis for the applicant's allegations of death threats.

The production request was denied because the requested documents, including post-resignation corporate merger details and respondents' personal tax information, were not arguably relevant to the Code-related allegations.

The adjournment request was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

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

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to provide written submissions and file documents, witness lists, and summaries of evidence.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions despite warnings that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a university and several individuals, including a fellow student, alleging discrimination after the student refused to let him participate in a group assignment and used a racial epithet.

The applicant requested an order compelling the university to disclose the student's contact information for service.

The Tribunal considered whether the fellow student was a proper respondent.

Finding that the student was not providing an educational service to the applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Human Rights Code does not cover allegations of discrimination between fellow classmates.

The student was removed as a respondent and the request to compel disclosure of her contact information was denied.

The respondents requested an order directing the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations of discrimination in employment and failure to accommodate.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the particulars were reasonably necessary for the respondents to respond to the Application and ordered the applicant to provide them.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an interim order compelling the applicant to produce documents related to his subsequent employment, medical records for himself and his wife, and tax information.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce information regarding his subsequent employer, correspondence related to his job search, and his tax returns for 2008 and 2009, finding them relevant to the issues of mitigation and damages.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant's medical records as his health was not in issue, and deferred the request for his wife's medical records to the hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent landlord denied her and her son accommodation on the basis of family status and disability (ADHD).

The applicant claimed the respondent refused to let her view a townhouse at an alternate time and made a derogatory comment about her son's disability during the viewing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant was not considered as a tenant due to her own conduct during the visit, not for discriminatory reasons.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to vary the remedies sought and include an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents consented to the amendment on the condition that they have the opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the respondents may file a response to the new allegations.

The respondent university brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove several personal respondents from the human rights application.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists.

Despite two Case Assessment Directions ordering compliance and warning of potential dismissal, the applicant failed to file the required materials or confirm her intention to proceed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against York University, two professors, and a fellow student, alleging racial discrimination regarding a group project.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the two professors as personal respondents, accepting vicarious liability for their actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the professors, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request to compel the university to disclose the student respondent's contact information, ordering the applicant to first provide submissions on whether the student is a proper respondent under the Code.

The applicant, president of a company operating a gas station, filed a human rights application against an employee of the gas supplier, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, disability, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the dispute was essentially a commercial and contractual matter between two corporations not named as parties, and that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

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

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of concurrent grievances filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and the grievances.

Applying the principle that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of contrary findings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing after suffering a stroke and being hospitalized.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances warranted the adjournment, cancelled the scheduled hearing, and directed the Registrar to reschedule the matter for the summer of 2012.

The applicant in an age discrimination case filed requests to adjourn the scheduled hearing to obtain legal representation and for the production of other candidates' written tests and scoring documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as the applicant had ample time to retain counsel.

However, the Tribunal granted the production request, ordering the respondents to produce redacted copies of the other candidates' written tests and scoring documents, as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his age was disclosed to the test marker.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceeding seeking production of the applicant's cell phone records, business records, and mitigation documents.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of mitigation and the applicant's allegation that she was framed for workplace misconduct.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested documents, subject to a temporal limitation on the cell phone records.

The respondents requested an order removing the Chief of Police as a personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The applicant opposed the removal, arguing the Chief was institutionally responsible for training officers.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the London Police Services Board is a corporate respondent that accepts vicarious liability for its members and has the power to compel the Chief of Police to implement training if ordered as a remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, arguing that the respondent's online application form, which required a pastoral letter, violated the Code.

The applicant had previously filed an identical application that was dismissed for delay as it was outside the one-year limitation period.

In this new application, the applicant attempted to rely on a different section of the Code (s. 13) to argue the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of issue estoppel, finding that the question of timeliness had already been decided in the previous final decision between the same parties.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

The applicant subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The corporate respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer proceeding.

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

Her union had previously filed a grievance regarding the same underlying facts but withdrew it at mediation without the applicant's consent.

The union sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing the application against it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance mediation appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the union.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the application against the employer, holding that the union's withdrawal of the grievance over the applicant's express objections did not constitute a settlement that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights complaint.

The applicant, alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin, brought a motion for the disclosure of emergency provision letters and the hiring records of other teachers.

The Tribunal found that the hiring records and job postings for two specific teachers named in the application were relevant and ordered their disclosure with personal information redacted.

The request for emergency provision letters was denied as they were not relevant to the discrimination allegations.