Geneviève Debané

The applicant requested a second adjournment of a summary hearing less than a week before the scheduled date, citing a medical condition preventing her from self-representing and her representative's unavailability due to a medical procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify a late adjournment, noting the lack of explanation for the delay in retaining legal representation and the late notice of the medical condition.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application over 15 months after the decision was issued.

The Tribunal's rules require such requests to be filed within 30 days.

The applicant cited deteriorating mental and physical health as the reason for the delay.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to support that the applicant was incapable of filing a timely request and denied the request for reconsideration due to the significant delay.

The applicant, a self-represented job seeker, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after receiving explicitly racist text messages from the respondent's representative stating he only hires 'white men' and not 'foreners'.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the respondent vicariously liable for the discriminatory inquiries and refusal to hire, violating sections 5 and 23(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The reprisal claim, based on the respondent's threat to seek legal costs, was dismissed as it did not constitute a threat under section 8.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent's owners and managers to complete human rights training.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, place of origin, and creed against Sheepdog Tactical and the Ottawa Police.

The applicant claimed he was assaulted by the owner of Sheepdog Tactical and that the police improperly investigated the incident, leading to his own arrest.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against Sheepdog Tactical for lack of jurisdiction, as the alleged assault did not occur within a protected social area.

The application against the Ottawa Police was also dismissed because the applicant provided no evidence linking the police's actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because two of its witnesses had to attend a company event out of town.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as required by its Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant would present his case first, allowing the respondent's witnesses to attend their business trip and testify later if necessary.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievances.

The arbitrator rendered a final decision on the grievances, and the respondent consented to the reactivation request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed that it continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being unsuccessful in several job competitions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to October 2012 had already been dealt with in previous proceedings and dismissed them under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The remaining allegations regarding October 2012 job competitions were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking his lack of success to a prohibited ground or reprisal.

The Tribunal declined the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against a former colleague.

After the Tribunal was unable to deliver the application to the personal respondent, the applicant requested to add the former employer, The Keg Steakhouse and Bar, as a respondent and sought disclosure of the personal respondent's contact information.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request, adding the employer as a respondent and ordering it to provide the personal respondent's last known contact information.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant to deliver all arguably relevant documents in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the request or confirm delivery of the documents.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the applicant to deliver the documents and confirm his intention to proceed with the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the London Police Service as a respondent and to abridge the deadline to exchange documents prior to a scheduled Summary Hearing.

As the requests were unopposed by any other party, the Tribunal granted the requests, removing the London Police Service as a respondent and abridging the document exchange deadline to 14 days prior to the hearing.

The applicant filed an application on behalf of his son, alleging that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability by denying his long-term disability claim due to a pre-existing condition.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to propose any evidence linking the denial of benefits or the alleged unfair treatment to the prohibited grounds of race or disability.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the application on the basis that the litigation guardian, S.D., was in a conflict of interest and could not act for his daughter.

The applicant argued he had filed his own application, raised new legal arguments, and alleged bias against the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found no record of a separate application, no new arguments warranting reconsideration, and no factual basis for the allegation of bias.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The respondent filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a Notice of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application to continue to be held in abeyance until the stay is lifted or no longer in effect.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment requested an order for the production of the applicant's file from a third-party benefits adjudicator.

The applicant consented to the disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also partially granted the respondent's request for an extension of time to file hearing materials, setting new deadlines for both parties.

The applicant, a Muslim woman, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and racial discrimination by her store manager.

She also alleged that the respondent failed to properly investigate her internal complaint and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising these concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's evidence regarding the harassment was not credible, particularly because she failed to disclose the most significant allegations during the internal investigation.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent adequately investigated the complaint and that the termination was based on performance issues, not as a reprisal for enforcing her rights under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding her benefits and a recent denial of a lump sum payment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding benefits and retraining were substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission, and were therefore barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to identify how the denial of a lump sum payment was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Royal Bank of Canada and its legal counsel regarding debt collection.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banks are federally regulated entities outside provincial human rights jurisdiction, and that the conduct of opposing counsel does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application to introduce new evidence and to seek a punitive remedy of publishing the matter in a newspaper.

The Tribunal denied the request to introduce evidence, noting that amendments are for asserting new allegations of discrimination, not for introducing evidence, which must be done according to the Tribunal's rules for document exchange.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of whether the application could be amended to include the publication remedy to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits of the case.

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

The application was previously deferred pending a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act.

After the Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the applicant's appeal, the applicant sought to reactivate the application.

The respondent requested continued deferral as it had appealed the OCPC decision to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the Divisional Court appeal.