Geneviève Debané

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, family status, and age, claiming she was terminated shortly after advising her employer she was pregnant.

The application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant provided information indicating she suffered from severe anxiety and depression requiring psychiatric care and hospitalization.

The Tribunal held it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation following her termination from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was due to stress and ignorance of the time limit, and that she was pursuing an OLRB application against her union.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and stress did not constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision ordering him to produce notes taken during an evaluation process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1.

However, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant could redact any portions of the notes protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment, while simultaneously filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) due to uncertainty over whether the employment fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application until the CHRC determined the jurisdictional issue.

As the request was unopposed and deferral would prevent inconsistent decisions on jurisdiction, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the London Police Services Board and two individual officers.

The applicant brought a request to compel production of disciplinary records for one of the officers, which the Tribunal dismissed because the respondents confirmed no such records exist.

The respondents brought a request to remove the London Police Service and the Chief of Police as respondents.

The Tribunal removed the London Police Service on consent, but ordered further submissions regarding the removal of the Chief of Police, as the applicant opposed his removal despite an earlier concession.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the Superior Court of Justice and Justice Heather McGee, arising from a family law proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the judge based on judicial immunity.

The applicant subsequently advised he would not proceed against the judge but would continue against the Court regarding its alleged failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The Tribunal ordered the judge removed as a respondent and directed the application to proceed solely on the accommodation issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the respondent hospital, claiming two doctors prescribed her a controlled drug without her knowledge between 2001 and 2006.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed in May 2010, more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued she only discovered the drug was a controlled substance in May 2010.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant could have sought the information sooner, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability after being injured at work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the determination of the applicant's appeal for WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings considering the same facts and related issues, specifically whether the applicant required disability-related accommodation.

The application was deferred pending the decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing potential travel to China and a recent accident supported by a medical certificate.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the medical certificate indicated the applicant's restrictions had expired and did not support an inability to participate by telephone.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant could travel to China, he could participate in a teleconference.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the respondent's pre-hearing disclosure be excluded because it was delivered one day late.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also declined to order further production at this stage, directing the applicant to first review the documents provided by the respondent and to file a formal request if he still believed relevant documents were missing.

The applicant was also directed to provide his own documents in a readable format.

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

She subsequently brought an unopposed Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application to include reprisal as an additional ground.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the facts supporting the reprisal allegation were already pled and the amendment would not delay the proceeding or prejudice the respondents.

La requérante a demandé un ajournement de l'audience sur le fond de sa requête en raison du décès de sa mère.

L'intimée n'a pris aucune position.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la requérante a démontré l'existence de circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant un ajournement.

La demande d'ajournement est accordée.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because they might travel to China during the month of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for adjournments.

The applicant's potential travel plans did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the applicant had ample time to ensure the trip did not conflict with the hearing date.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

The applicant argued that the Grievance Settlement Board had ruled it would not hear his grievance.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the arbitration process was still ongoing for at least one of the grievances.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration process had not concluded and denied the request to reactivate as premature.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Final Decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He alleged bias, procedural errors, and that the respondents' counsel had no legal status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability requested an interim order compelling a third-party insurance broker to produce the respondents' liability insurance policy.

The applicant argued the policy would show the respondents' decisions were covered by insurance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the insurance policy was not relevant to the human rights proceeding.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the corporate respondent and remove the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin.

The Tribunal noted the corporate respondent was already added automatically.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondent because his personal conduct and conversation with the applicant were central to the allegations in the application.

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

Despite receiving multiple notices of the hearing, including a Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

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

The applicant, a 17-year-old minor alleging age discrimination in housing, brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to add the property owner, Havcare Investments Inc., as a corporate respondent.

The individual respondent, a property manager, and the proposed corporate respondent did not oppose the request.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation against the proposed respondent and that adding the party would not cause unfairness or prejudice.

The request was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the College and its Students Right and Responsibility Officer, alleging discrimination based on age, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The respondents requested an interim order to remove the Officer as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the College assumed vicarious liability for the Officer's actions, which were taken in the course of enforcing the College's policies, and there was no compelling reason to maintain him as a personal respondent.