Geneviève Debané

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after her union required medical documentation to exempt her from picket duties and subsequently disciplined her for attending work during a strike.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the medical documentation the applicant relied upon did not support her requested exemption, and her decision to attend work was a personal choice unrelated to her disability.

The proposed intervenor, Justice for Children and Youth, filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination with respect to educational services.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to intervene, finding that the applicant was already represented by counsel, the allegations involved direct interactions rather than systemic issues, and the issues raised fell squarely within the Tribunal's expertise.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance procedure.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondent opposed the reactivation because the grievance had been referred to arbitration and a hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that under Rule 14.4, the grievance process had not yet concluded.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application following a decision by an Employment Standards Officer.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but filed their own request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and directed that a half-day preliminary hearing be convened to address the respondents' dismissal request.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple grievances based on the same facts, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it would prevent concurrent proceedings and the risk of contrary findings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceedings.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal sought to add three employees as personal respondents.

The respondent sought to remove an already named personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding no compelling reason to add the employees since the organizational respondent was vicariously liable.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the named personal respondent for the same reason, as the organizational respondent had accepted liability for the conduct.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding his termination and lack of extended working notice.

The respondent argued the application was barred by two signed releases.

The applicant had also appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application on its own initiative, finding that the OLRB proceedings would likely address the enforceability of the releases and the circumstances of the termination, and deferral was necessary to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicants requested an interim remedy to reinstate T.B. in a school belonging to a different school board.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request because the remedy was sought against a school board that was not a party to the application.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an unfair labour practice application filed by a union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the OLRB application did not seek similar remedies or raise Code issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues regarding the applicant's termination overlapped significantly between the two proceedings.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent golf club, brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to add a club member as a respondent to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found compelling reasons to add the member as a respondent, noting the novel issue of liability for an equity member's conduct and the timeliness of the request.

The request was granted.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against him by failing to grant him interviews for three positions he applied for after settling a previous human rights application.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence relied entirely on communications covered by settlement privilege.

Without this inadmissible evidence, the application was based on pure speculation.

The Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent filed a Request For Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated telecommunications company.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is an inter-provincial, federally-regulated entity subject to federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of appeals at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The WSIB opposed reactivation because the WSIB proceedings had not concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the applicant had not provided confirmation that the WSIB proceedings had concluded or been withdrawn, as required by Rule 14.4.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an individual respondent and subsequently requested to amend the application and add her employer, Pegasus Hospitality Group, as a respondent.

The individual respondent opposed the requests, while the proposed corporate respondent did not object and filed a response to the amended allegations.

The Tribunal granted the requests to add the employer as a respondent and to amend the application, finding that the employer could be subject to findings or orders and that the amendments provided clear particulars.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions regarding the upcoming hearing and potential mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent, her former co-worker/manager, following her termination from employment.

The applicant had previously settled a related application against the respondent and their employer, signing a full and final release.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that attempting to relitigate the pre-settlement allegations was an abuse of process, as the applicant was not under economic duress when she signed the release.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the post-settlement reprisal allegations, as the applicant's evidence was based entirely on speculation.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $8,000 for Human Rights Code violations.

The respondent argued it did not receive notice because its principal was incarcerated and the application was in French, and claimed to have new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent had received notice prior to the principal's incarceration, understood the allegations, and simply chose not to participate.

No new facts were presented that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, alleging bias because she obtained her credentials outside Canada and suggesting a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of bias or conflict of interest, noting the applicant merely repeated previous arguments and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2013 regarding an incident that occurred in 1991, where a derogatory comment was allegedly written on the wall of his room at a psychiatric facility.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the 22-year delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had the necessary information to file in 1991.

Furthermore, the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a witness, and the closure of the facility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former Client Support Analyst, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (clinical depression).

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to ongoing performance issues and an inability to get along with her supervisor, and that the decision was made prior to her sick leave and without knowledge of her disability.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her disability was a factor in the termination.

The application was dismissed.