Geneviève Debané

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to his termination from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

The intervenor union supported deferral, while the self-represented applicant objected.

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

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because a mediation was scheduled for a concurrent complaint filed in Quebec regarding the same subject matter.

The respondent consented to the adjournment and supported deferring the Application.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the Application was identical to the Quebec complaint and raised jurisdictional concerns.

To avoid inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the Quebec proceeding and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of social assistance, 15 months after being evicted for rent arrears pursuant to a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.

At a preliminary hearing, the adjudicator refused the applicant's request to recuse herself for alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on three separate grounds: it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant did not qualify for the rent subsidy he claimed; it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate the LTB consent order; and it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant, a patient in a secure forensic unit, filed multiple human rights applications alleging discrimination.

During a telephone hearing to address specific allegations, including a claim that a doctor discriminatorily greeted him with 'hello ladies', the applicant engaged in highly disruptive, abusive, and disrespectful behaviour, repeatedly yelling at the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found the doctor's comment did not constitute discrimination.

Furthermore, due to the applicant's refusal to comply with directions and his abusive conduct, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining applications as an abuse of process, finding it impossible to conduct a fair hearing.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary educational assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after her employment was terminated.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to significant performance issues, including a failure to properly supervise students and follow the principle of 'guiding hands'.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had bona fide performance-related concerns and that there was no evidence to suggest the applicant's race or colour was a factor in her treatment or termination.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of a grievance process initiated by the intervener union.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the application and the grievance involved overlapping facts and allegations.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant, a former foster parent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by two Children's Aid Societies.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address the timeliness of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations involved two distinct sets of events that did not constitute a series of incidents, and both were filed beyond the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the delay, noting she did not exercise due diligence in pursuing her rights.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of reprisal that post-dated the original filing.

The respondent hotel objected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, finding that the new allegations were distinct from the original ones, would unduly delay the scheduled hearing, and did not involve the individual respondent.

The Tribunal concluded it would not be fair, just, and expeditious to allow the amendment.

The applicant sought an interim remedy to be immediately enrolled in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) pending the resolution of his human rights application alleging discrimination based on citizenship, gender identity, family, and marital status.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the significant onus required for an extraordinary interim remedy that would suspend the operation of the Health Insurance Act prior to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had purchased private insurance and was not disentitled from obtaining health care, meaning the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services and reprisal by the Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the events occurred in Quebec.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction over acts occurring outside Ontario unless they relate to matters within the province.

Finding no sufficient connection to Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal for his membership on a union bargaining committee, but failed to identify any grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss seeking submissions on jurisdiction.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sexual orientation and reprisal, claiming that his private information was posted on a website and that politicians or the government were involved.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding that the applicant failed to link the events to a protected ground or identify how he claimed a right under the Code, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former student, sought an interim remedy to be readmitted to the respondent university for the Fall 2015 semester, alleging his mental health would deteriorate otherwise.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the extraordinary remedy or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to deliver all arguably relevant documents to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal had deferred the application pending the conclusion of a proceeding at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal inquiries regarding the status of the other proceeding, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a parallel civil proceeding in Small Claims Court.

The applicant submitted a court order staying the civil action until she provided certain particulars, arguing this satisfied the requirement.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding had not concluded, as the stay order predated the deferral decision and indicated the civil claim was ongoing.

The request to reactivate was dismissed, and the application remained deferred.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had filed an amended Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court seeking damages for the breach of his Code rights arising from the same events.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred because the applicant had elected to seek remedies in a civil proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order compelling the Toronto Police Services Board to produce video statements of the applicant, respondent, and two witnesses.

The Tribunal found the statements arguably relevant and ordered the police to produce them to the respondent's counsel, who must then share them with the applicant's counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued the delay was due to waiting for other legal proceedings and a brain injury.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other proceedings does not constitute good faith, and the medical evidence provided did not establish a causal link between her disability and the inability to file on time.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his deferred human rights application following a final decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the request timely, reactivated the application, and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant, a former Ph.D. student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and reprisal after being withdrawn from his program.

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

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred when the applicant was withdrawn from the program, which was almost two years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal held that pursuing an internal university appeal process did not constitute a valid explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without good faith delay.