Ian R. Mackenzie

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

He claimed he was laid off and later terminated due to a back injury, and that he was subjected to ageist comments by co-workers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

There was no evidence connecting his layoff or termination to his disability, as the termination arose from a dispute over his rate of pay.

Regarding the ageist comments, the Tribunal noted that the applicant participated in the workplace banter, did not complain to management, and the employer took appropriate steps to address the issue once notified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to provide a summary of his expected evidence.

At the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars to support his allegations of reprisal or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success regarding the disability allegations, as the alleged threat of demotion occurred during discussions about modified duties and the applicant did not agree to a demotion.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding seeking further disclosure and particulars from the respondent police services and officers.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of prior race-based complaints against the involved officers to the Tribunal for vetting, as well as documents relating to the TAVIS initiative and Project Charter.

The Tribunal denied the request for documents from the internal Police Services Act investigation, finding them not arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondents to call an additional witness identified late, finding no substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and race after his hunting rifles were retained and his firearms license was revoked.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the continued retention of his rifles constituted a continuing contravention of the Code.

The Tribunal held that the retention of the firearms was a single incident with continuing effects, not a series of incidents, and therefore the application was untimely.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith to determine if an extension of the time limit should be granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability and reprisal, stemming from debt collection efforts by the respondents after his non-profit organization cancelled an event.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the debt collection process or the service of court documents to the applicant's disability or to a reprisal for filing the application.

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

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment in employment and a failure by the respondents to properly investigate.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested that the two applications be heard together and that the hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to overlapping facts and the risk of inconsistent findings, and granted the adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the exclusion of witnesses but exempted the respondents' advisor, provided he testify first.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that intended testimony regarding one applicant spreading rumours was inadmissible character evidence.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated because she took maternity leave.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the termination was for performance-related reasons and lack of compliance with regulations.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not point to evidence linking her termination to her maternity leave, other than the timing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim regarding a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of several Tribunal decisions and an administrative file closure, arguing that he was medically incapacitated and unable to represent himself during the proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the legal principles of mental capacity and found no basis to conclude the applicant was legally incapable of conducting the litigation.

The Tribunal also found that the requests were untimely, no new determinative facts were presented, and the decisions were not in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The requests for reconsideration were denied.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal after not being considered for several job postings.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was an external candidate and the positions he applied for were either filled internally or cancelled.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not demonstrate a link between the respondent's actions and his age or a reprisal, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and housing.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application two and a half months after the conclusion of a related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding, missing the 60-day deadline under Rule 14.4.

The respondent and intervenor opposed the reactivation, arguing it was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's reasons for the delay were not entirely reasonable, the respondent and intervenor failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice resulting from the two-and-a-half-month delay.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time limit and allowed the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was laid off and a younger, less experienced co-worker was hired permanently.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that there were disputed facts regarding her performance and the personnel agency's knowledge of the alleged discrimination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services or facilities on the basis of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant resigned from her employment after four weeks, alleging she was pressured to resign due to the unauthorized disclosure of her confidential medical information and workplace rumours.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as she merely asserted that the respondent must have known her medical history.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being advised that a seniors' residence on his social housing waiting list was restricting access to individuals of Greek origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application based on the exemption in section 18 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also raised a Charter challenge.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the stand-alone Charter challenge.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the residence met the three-part test under section 18 of the Code as a philanthropic organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons of Greek origin.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability by his employer and union.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple procedural requests.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend his application to include new systemic discrimination allegations, finding it would prejudice the respondents at this late stage.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations relating to a January 2008 incident and workplace harassment as untimely.

The applicant was denied permission to call four additional witnesses due to late disclosure and lack of relevance.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend his application to allege that the union discouraged him from applying for positions requiring accommodation, and consequently dismissed the union's request to dismiss the application against it for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose medical records and particulars regarding his restrictions to the employer.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was unable to return to work after witnessing a workplace assault due to the respondents' failure to address the poisoned work environment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to use the duty to accommodate to force the respondents to address general workplace harassment issues that do not fall under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

He argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's proposed new witnesses could have been identified earlier and did not affect the timeliness analysis.

The Tribunal also noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or seek a waiver of statutory time limits without justification.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being prohibited from visiting her father at his retirement home.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the father's companion as it was a family dispute outside its jurisdiction.

The application against the retirement home was also dismissed because the home was merely following the father's instructions and did not discriminate on a prohibited ground.