Ian R. Mackenzie

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against the Law School Admission Council (LSAC).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because LSAC appeared to be a US-based organization with no connection to Ontario.

The applicant submitted that the service and requested accommodation were in Ontario, citing previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and directed that processing proceed.

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

The parties subsequently signed Minutes of Settlement resolving both a university policy complaint and the Tribunal application, with the applicant agreeing to withdraw her application.

When the applicant failed to withdraw the application, claiming she felt pressured and coerced into signing the settlement, the respondents requested an order dismissing the application.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion, concluding the applicant simply had second thoughts, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a male teacher, alleged that the respondent union's policies dedicating 6% of its budget to women-only training and reserving 5 of 14 executive positions for women constituted sex discrimination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the policies were protected as special programs under section 14 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the programs were designed to assist a disadvantaged group (women) to achieve equal opportunity within the union.

Applying the Roberts analysis, the Tribunal held that section 14 provides a complete defence because the applicant is a member of a historically privileged group whose needs do not fall within the purpose of the special programs.

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

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

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because they did not live in the same building.

The Tribunal found that although the condominium has two addresses, it is a single condominium with common areas, a shared superintendent, and the same management company.

The Tribunal concluded the parties are occupants of the same building within the meaning of s. 2(2) of the Human Rights Code and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming an Assessment Officer treated him with incivility during a costs assessment hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal held that Assessment Officers are judicial officers and their conduct during adjudicative functions does not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal based on membership in a vocational association, claiming she suffered a reprisal for refusing to join the Jehovah Witnesses.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that a religious organization is not a vocational association under the Human Rights Code, and the alleged reprisal did not relate to asserting a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging age discrimination in a police hiring process brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to amend their Response and to compel the production of documents.

The applicant did not oppose the amendment but resisted producing notes taken during the evaluation process, claiming they were privileged.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and ordered the production of the notes, finding they were relevant and that no basis for privilege had been established.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by the individual respondent.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding to dismiss allegations relating to an incident in 2006 due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the 2006 incident was not part of a series of incidents because there was a three-and-a-half-year gap and a break in employment between the incidents.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the time limit under s. 34(2) of the Code, finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith as the applicant had accepted an apology and regarded the matter as resolved at the time.

The 2006 allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging that an adjudicator failed to consider her disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate when dismissing her tenancy application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to adjudicators of the Landlord and Tenant Board acting in the exercise of their statutory duties.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the original application indicated the last event occurred more than a year prior to filing.

The applicant subsequently amended the application to correct the date of the last event to his termination date, bringing it within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations were untimely and declined to dismiss the application.

However, noting that the applicant was also pursuing a union grievance arbitration, the Tribunal ordered that a Notice of Intent to Defer be issued.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his YMCA membership was terminated.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to a history of inappropriate behaviour and complaints.

Following a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to articulate any link between the termination of his membership and his disability.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an order that documents and a DVD of security camera video disclosed to the applicant not be used for any purpose other than the human rights application.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, misunderstanding it as preventing her from using the evidence in the proceeding.

The Tribunal clarified the nature of the request and ordered that the disclosed materials be used solely for the purposes of the present Application.

The applicant, an apprentice plumber, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and sex after the respondent union revoked her apprenticeship agreement.

The respondent requested a summary hearing.

At the summary hearing, the applicant failed to articulate how the evidence would establish a link between the termination of her apprenticeship and any prohibited ground of discrimination, stating only that it was 'just the way I feel about it'.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

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

Following an earlier interim decision declining to defer the matter, the respondent was directed to file a response but failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the potential consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after a Crown prosecutor refused to withdraw a Highway Traffic Act charge when an interpreter failed to appear for his court hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the actions of the Justice of the Peace were protected by judicial immunity, and the Crown prosecutor's exercise of prosecutorial discretion to not withdraw the charge was protected by prosecutorial immunity and did not constitute a service under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a union steward, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin during a union election.

He claimed that a broken hyperlink to his biography in an email to members and insulting comments made by a union official at an all-candidates meeting were discriminatory.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differentially regarding the hyperlink, as another candidate experienced the same issue, and there was no evidence linking the events or comments to the applicant's ethnic or place of origin.

The application was dismissed.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, on consent, an individual respondent was removed from the application.

Second, the Tribunal struck allegations relating to the denial of promotional opportunities that occurred more than one year prior to the application, finding the applicant failed to explain the delay in good faith and the respondent would suffer significant prejudice.

Third, the Tribunal denied the respondent's request to adjourn the hearing, finding that the applicant's late disclosure of documents still left sufficient time for preparation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was removed from the respondent's pension plan due to his age.

He concurrently filed a complaint with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) under the Pension Benefits Act.

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

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the FSCO and the Tribunal were being asked to determine two different issues, minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment, initially seeking $30,000 to $40,000 in damages while self-represented.

After retaining a representative and participating in an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the requested remedy to $100,000.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not change the nature of the allegations, would not affect the hearing schedule, and caused no clear prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and constructive dismissal after her hours were reduced.

Prior to filing the application, she commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts, alleging constructive dismissal and breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement.