Ian R. Mackenzie

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin after his union removed him from his positions as shop steward and human rights committee member, and failed to take his grievance to arbitration.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations without any factual foundation linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), claiming she was underpaid and treated unfairly.

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

The Tribunal found that it lacks general jurisdiction to review decisions under disability-based benefit programs for fairness or correctness, and the applicant did not allege differential treatment compared to others with different disabilities.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, with the Tribunal noting the proper forum is the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misinterpreted facts and raised a Charter argument.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to present new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor did he establish factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

After being denied an adjournment, the applicant was ordered to confirm his attendance at the scheduled hearing by a specific deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to confirm his attendance, instead leaving a voicemail reiterating his request for an adjournment, and failed to meet disclosure requirements.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing less than a week prior to the hearing date, without providing reasons for his unavailability or the delay in requesting the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances.

Additionally, due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure requirements, he was barred from filing additional documents or calling witnesses other than himself.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his attendance by a specified deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that the actions of an Assessment Officer in a judicial proceeding are not 'services' under the Code.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request because it was filed late without a compelling reason, and the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to add several municipalities as respondents and to compel disclosure of closed Board meeting minutes and a personnel file.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the municipalities, noting they comprise the unincorporated Mid-Huron Landfill Site Board and their addition ensures any award is enforceable.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of the disputed documents at this stage, requiring the applicant to establish an evidentiary foundation for relevance at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, who has a visual disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the Attorney General.

He claimed he was forced into a court hearing and denied state-funded legal representation, arguing that the definition of disability in the Rules of Civil Procedure is discriminatory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that opposing counsel does not provide a service under the Code and that expanding the definition of disability in the Rules would not entitle the applicant to public funding for legal representation.

The applicant, a riding instructor who suffers from panic attacks, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After requesting accommodation, her hours were drastically reduced and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The respondent failed to reply to the application and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant and terminated her employment because of her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $3,684.40 for lost wages and $10,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a veterinarian, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario regarding disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed approximately 16 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the discrimination was ongoing due to continuing litigation.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude is not a good faith reason for delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation, sick leave benefits, and harassment.

The employer and the applicant's union were concurrently involved in a grievance arbitration process addressing the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

Finding that the grievance arbitration was scheduled to proceed shortly and would address the same issues, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because she was in the process of changing counsel and her new counsel was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, particularly given the age of the application and a previous adjournment granted for the same reason.

The individual respondent, a teacher, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to add the School Board as a respondent and to remove herself as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments.

The School Board consented to being added and acknowledged the teacher was acting in the course of her employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the School Board and removing the individual teacher as a respondent, noting the School Board's capacity to respond to the monetary remedy sought.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents submitted a detailed document responding to the allegations but failed to file a completed Form 2 as required by Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a completed Form 2 within ten days, noting that the previously submitted document would be added as a schedule to the completed form.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance proceeding based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts, human rights issues, and requested remedies in the application were identical to those in the ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that the applicant could request to reactivate the application if his human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, more than one year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his ignorance of his rights under the Human Rights Code until advised by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that ignorance of one's rights does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Code.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her sex and creed, and that she was subjected to sexual and religious harassment by co-workers.

The Tribunal found that a single inappropriate comment did not constitute sexual harassment, and that the employer was not liable for religious comments made by co-workers because the applicant never brought them to management's attention.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's evidence that the termination was a non-discriminatory business decision resulting from a decline in sales.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as an abuse of process because the parties had previously settled the matter.

The applicant argued that the settlement was not binding on the university because its representative did not sign it, and that the settlement did not address all issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues that were already canvassed and that she failed to establish any criteria justifying reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of time to comply with disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17, citing late retention of counsel.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

However, the Tribunal granted the extension of time for disclosure.

The Tribunal also directed that a respondent's Request for an Order during a Proceeding (RFOP) seeking dismissal for failure to establish a prima facie case would be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, more than one year after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued that he was waiting for the union grievance process to conclude and was unaware of his rights under the Code.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another legal proceeding and ignorance of the law do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The application was dismissed.