Ian R. Mackenzie

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being asked by the respondent's staff to move from a park bench near its drop-in centre, pursuant to a 'good neighbour' policy.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination or identify a reprisal for asserting Code rights.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to remove two individual respondents from the human rights application and to strike parts of the application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, applying the Persaud factors, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for their actions and their presence as parties was not necessary for a fair resolution.

The issue of timeliness was deferred to the commencement of the hearing.

The applicants, two former graduate students, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding their expulsion from a university program.

They subsequently filed a civil statement of claim against the university and individual respondents based on the identical facts, alleging a breach of the Human Rights Code and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Code acts as a mandatory bar to the applications because a civil proceeding had been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, sexual orientation, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The allegations related to events that occurred over an 11-year period, all of which were beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to pursuing other legal avenues, which the Tribunal found did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his former union and its officers discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file a grievance regarding the denial of his long-term disability benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the union's decision not to pursue the grievance was based on the delay in filing, a prior last chance agreement releasing the employer from liability, and the fact that the applicant was no longer employed.

The applicant provided no evidence to suggest that his disability was a factor in the union's decision.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following the completion of an appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and a peace bond application.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but requested a hearing to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in the other proceedings.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered that a hearing on the section 45.1 dismissal request be scheduled once the transcript of the peace bond proceeding is available.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, sex, and reprisal following his termination, filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding seeking extensive disclosure of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguably relevant' test and ordered partial disclosure, including documents relating to the work experience of similarly-situated employees and notes of specific conversations, while dismissing overbroad requests for entire personnel files and irrelevant personal information.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, claiming her employer failed to accommodate her pregnancy.

The respondent and the union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

After her request for an adjournment was denied, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

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

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, the managing director of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions, which occurred in the course of his employment.

As there were no allegations of harassment against the personal respondent and the corporate respondent could fulfill any monetary remedy, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability, culminating in his termination.

The applicant had also filed a grievance regarding his termination, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, particularly regarding the allegations of discrimination based on disability and the remedies sought.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, and creed.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file documents, witness lists, and summaries by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding the respondent's representative, who was neither a lawyer nor a licensed paralegal.

After the representative failed to provide a Law Society of Upper Canada license number or explain how he fit within the permitted exemptions for providing legal services, the Tribunal found he did not fall under any allowed exemption.

The Tribunal ordered that the representative not be permitted to act and that the respondent be regarded as unrepresented.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to postpone the hearing or testify by videoconference or teleconference because she was moving out of the province.

The Tribunal denied the request to testify remotely, noting that the respondent denied any employment relationship existed, making the applicant's credibility a significant issue and her evidence key to the proceeding.

The applicant was permitted to propose alternate dates for an in-person hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment as a bar steward was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was for economic reasons and that the decision was made before the applicant raised any health concerns.

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

Finding that the recommendation to terminate the applicant's employment was made prior to the respondent having any knowledge of his health issues, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of proving the termination was based on a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled hearing two days prior, citing 'personal dilemmas'.

The applicant had previously failed to comply with disclosure deadlines and Case Assessment Directions.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide detailed reasons or demonstrate extraordinary or exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age and family status after her employment was terminated upon her return from bereavement leave.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the termination was due to a workplace reorganization and that there was no link to the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing a link between her termination and her age or family status, as a simple difference in age from her replacement and the timing of her termination were insufficient to prove discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, which the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant later advised the Tribunal that he experienced technical difficulties and requested a re-hearing.

After initially failing to copy the respondents on his request, the applicant complied following a Case Assessment Direction.

Finding no bad faith, the adjudicator ordered a re-hearing of the summary hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing and repeatedly requested adjournments.

The applicant argued he did not receive proper notice and faced scheduling difficulties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had received notice, was attempting to re-argue his denied adjournment request, and failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and family status, claiming she was terminated after returning from maternity and parental leave.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already dealt with by an Employment Standards officer.

The Tribunal found that the Employment Standards officer had appropriately addressed the allegations relating to family status and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, as the officer did not address the race discrimination allegations, the Tribunal ordered a further summary hearing to determine if those allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.