Geneviève Debané

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he left the hearing room mid-hearing.

The applicant argued he left because he felt uncomfortable with the adjudicator and the hearing process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that parties cannot leave a hearing without consequences and must respect the Tribunal's process.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The corporate applicant, which manages a platform of standardized parenting plans, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents' school bus policies discriminated against separated parents and children with two homes, thereby interfering with the applicant's ability to contract with those parents.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and the respondents, and that a corporation is not capable of being in a parent-child relationship to claim discrimination on the ground of family status.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the allegations did not relate to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant's allegations involved disputes over trailer park facilities and did not link the alleged harassment and discrimination to any Code grounds.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested the removal of four individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found insufficient allegations against one individual respondent and removed her as a party.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the remaining three individual respondents, finding sufficient allegations of harassment that could attract personal liability.

The applicant consented to dismiss the human rights application against the respondent union, the Association de la police de l'Ontario.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondents reprised against him based on his association with another employee who had filed an application.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and fell under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments provided further particulars to allegations already raised in the original application, were not untimely, and would not cause prejudice as the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed two identical human rights applications against his employer and manager.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.

The respondents supported consolidation, while the applicant opposed it, proposing they be heard consecutively.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found that the identical allegations would require the same evidence, and failing to consolidate could result in duplicative proceedings and inconsistent results.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two applications.

The applicants, two brothers employed by the respondent, filed applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applications under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the applications had been dealt with by the Ministry of Labour in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Ministry of Labour's findings regarding reprisal under the ESA were not determinative of the Code-related allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, family status, and reprisal.

As part of her application, she challenged the constitutionality of subsection 48(3) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing it contravenes the Human Rights Code.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested to intervene solely on the constitutional issue.

The Tribunal granted the Ministry's request to intervene, noting its mandate to participate in proceedings where legislation is challenged and finding that its intervention would provide a more fulsome record.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at an event.

The respondent requested a Summary Hearing, asserting it did not organize the event and was incorrectly named.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded that he had no issues against the named respondent and that the application was filed in error.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting the applicant could file a fresh application against the correct respondent within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and requested deferral pending the resolution of a Ministry of Labour complaint under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent consented to deferral but requested that the Tribunal first address its request to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in both proceedings were almost identical and that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal declined to address the preliminary request to dismiss prior to deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order permitting it to access, use, and disclose the applicant's occupational health and claims management file before filing its response, as well as a 35-day extension of time to file the response.

The applicant consented to the document access but argued the extension should be limited to 14 days.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances justified early production of the medical file to allow the respondent to meaningfully respond.

The Tribunal granted the document access and ordered the respondent to file its response within 21 days.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed to prevent future refiling.

The Tribunal granted the applicant permission to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to refile, the respondent may raise its objections at that time.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after she was deemed to have resigned due to absences related to childcare issues.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer who denied the applicant termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding the ESO decision did not address human rights principles or the duty to accommodate, and concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a proceeding under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that while there was some overlap regarding events from January to February 2014, the WSIA proceeding did not address allegations from February to May 2014, including the applicant's removal from the work schedule.

Due to insufficient overlap, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to defer the application and directed the respondents to file a response.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application because of an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the LTB was not addressing human rights issues.

Several respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the allegations related to the applicant's interactions with the landlord and its agents, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the LTB proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and age during a job interview process, claiming she was treated rudely and made to wait for several hours.

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

The applicant admitted she had no evidence to link the respondent's conduct to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence of discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin after being told an apartment he applied for was no longer available.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence to support his belief that he was denied the apartment for discriminatory motives or that the respondent had an unofficial policy of denying single black males.

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

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 scheduled telephone conference hearing.

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