Ian R. Mackenzie

The applicant, a hospital employee with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate his disability when it refused to consider him for a full-time cleaner position.

He also alleged that his union discriminated against him by discouraging him from seeking accommodated positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the hospital met its procedural duty to accommodate by repeatedly requesting updated medical information, which the applicant failed to provide.

Without this information, the hospital could not safely accommodate him in a physically demanding role.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's allegations against the union to be not credible.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and racial harassment by his neighbours, one of whom is a police officer, and by the Police Services Board in its investigation.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in a Police Services Act complaint and a peace bond proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that neither proceeding appropriately dealt with the human rights issues, as the PSA process lacked personal remedies and the peace bond proceeding focused on reasonable fear for safety rather than discrimination.

The applicant, a racialized woman, alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent on the basis of sex, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed she was subjected to differential treatment, including a heavier workload, removal of files, excessive scrutiny, and racially insensitive comments by her supervisor, which ultimately led to her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that her sex or race were factors in the respondent's actions.

The application was dismissed.

During the hearing of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, an issue arose regarding the disclosure of the applicant's Occupational Health and Safety file.

The file contained medical information and clinical notes.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the file to all parties, with the restriction that the medical information only be shared with representatives and witnesses who need to know it and only be used for the purposes of the application.

The applicant, a 59-year-old temporary agency worker, alleged age discrimination when the respondent packaging company hired a younger temporary worker for a permanent machine operator position.

The applicant also alleged that her temporary agency failed to investigate her complaint of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the packaging company, finding it provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation that the younger worker was better qualified based on speed and accuracy.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the temporary agency, finding it was unaware of the applicant's discrimination concerns and had no duty to investigate complaints based merely on seniority.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and colour.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that disagreements with conclusions, restating arguments, and pointing out immaterial factual errors do not justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging employment discrimination.

She argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing and that disagreement with findings of fact or credibility does not justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

In an interim decision during a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in a police traffic stop, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural and disclosure issues.

The Tribunal allowed amendments to the application, bifurcated the hearing, and denied a media request to record the proceedings.

On disclosure, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain police procedures and records check policies, but denied requests for note-taking and traffic stop policies.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' claim that records of a third-party police complaint were protected by statutory privilege under the Police Services Act, finding that HRTO proceedings are not 'civil proceedings' and fall within the 'law enforcement' exception to the secrecy provisions.

The applicant, a black Commissionaire, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour.

He claimed his supervisor made inappropriate comments and gestures, that he was unfairly sent home pending a work permit renewal, that a harassment investigation and resulting discipline were discriminatory, and that black employees were segregated and denied access to job postings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for any of the allegations, as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's race or colour.

The applicant, a 65-year-old salesperson, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age.

The respondent employer maintained that the applicant was not dismissed but had resigned after a new general manager was hired to take over some of the owner's duties.

The Tribunal applied the test for credibility and found the respondent's version of events more probable, noting the absence of a termination letter and the applicant's own resignation letter.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's inquiries about the applicant's retirement plans were legitimate and that no discriminatory termination occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications against her former employer and union as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law regarding a unionized employee's right to independent counsel during grievance settlements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant participated in the settlement, signed a release, and failed to demonstrate any conflict with established jurisprudence or other grounds justifying reconsideration.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of race by police officers during a traffic stop, sought disclosure of records of prior race-based complaints against the respondent officers.

The Tribunal reviewed five responsive records produced by the police service.

Applying the test for similar fact evidence, the Tribunal ordered the disclosure of two records that were temporally proximate or involved similar allegations, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of three older, unsubstantiated complaints that lacked sufficient similarity to the allegations in the application, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed any limited probative value.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of employment discrimination.

She argued the decision conflicted with established case law, involved matters of public importance, and was biased.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that disagreement with findings of fact or credibility is insufficient for reconsideration, and that the applicant failed to provide evidence of bias or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During a Proceeding to amend the remedies sought in his human rights application.

The proposed amendments included consolidating damages claims, clarifying requests for lost wages and benefits, and specifying that a consultant conduct an audit and training.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding they were clarifications of the original requests, would not cause prejudice to the respondents, and were appropriate despite being requested late in the proceeding.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her former employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability.

The applicant had previously settled a grievance regarding her termination, signing minutes of settlement and a release that resolved all employment matters and withdrew her human rights complaint.

The applicant argued the settlement was signed under duress and was a charade.

The Tribunal held that allowing the applications to proceed would be an abuse of process, as the settlement fully addressed the human rights issues and there was no factual foundation to support the claim of duress or discriminatory conduct by the union in reaching the settlement.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, an accident benefits analyst, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She claimed the respondent failed to accommodate her eye disability by not reducing her workload and requiring her to complete short-term disability forms.

She also alleged racial profiling during a training session and a discriminatory workplace investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had appropriately accommodated her disability by reducing her workload and allowing breaks, and that the applicant failed to cooperate by refusing to provide requested medical information.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination or reprisal in the respondent's actions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application against St. Stephen's Community House.

The original application alleged discrimination and reprisal related to the respondent's 'good neighbour' policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Human Rights Code and the Tribunal's Rules, as he did not present new determinative facts, demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, or show other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race regarding the seizure of his firearms and revocation of his license.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he only discovered the discriminatory motive during a judicial review hearing.

The Tribunal found that even if the doctrine of discoverability applied, the applicant waited almost another year after the hearing to file his application.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to act with due diligence, the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2), and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (knee injury).

He claimed that his employer failed to accommodate his physical restrictions and that two 30-day suspensions and his subsequent termination were motivated by his disability.

During the hearing, after the applicant's testimony-in-chief, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the failure to accommodate allegation was untimely and that the applicant failed to establish any connection between his discipline or termination and his disability.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin during her job interview, employment, and subsequent termination during her probationary period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached section 5 of the Human Rights Code by asking discriminatory questions regarding the applicant's immigrant and marital status during her interview.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of a poisoned work environment and discriminatory termination, finding that the termination was based on performance and communication issues.

A declaration of the breach was issued, but no monetary compensation was awarded as the applicant suffered no negative impact or injury to dignity from the questions.