Jacek Janczur

The respondents in a human rights application requested the removal of the individual respondent, who was the owner and operator of the corporate respondent, and also requested a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondent personally engaged in discriminatory practices, harassment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that his personal conduct was a central issue in the allegations and that a remedial order could be made against him if the allegations were proven.

The request for a summary hearing was also denied.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior decision by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant alleged harassment and termination based on disability.

The Tribunal found that the ARO decision, which dealt with Loss of Earning Benefits and explicitly stated it could not decide if the termination was for cause, did not address the human rights issues.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race.

The application was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance process.

A grievance arbitrator subsequently dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement or the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then sought to reactivate his application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had concurrent jurisdiction, dealt with the same issues, and appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and family status.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon her termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress to obtain her Record of Employment and a reference letter.

The Tribunal found that the pressure the applicant experienced did not amount to duress and that she had been given seven days to consider the severance offer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after not being properly accommodated for a workplace injury.

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

Assuming the applicant's facts to be true, the Tribunal found that the dismissal following an injury and alleged lack of accommodation could provide evidentiary support for a discriminatory decision.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed.

The applicant, a Master's student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being unsuccessful in her application for a research assistant position.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegedly false or misleading explanation provided to the applicant regarding the hiring decision could support an inference of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to mediation.

The applicant, a student, alleged that the respondent, a teacher, discriminated against her on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin by making derogatory remarks about her Serbian heritage.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the alleged remarks could amount to differential treatment under the Code and that the incidents were timely as a series of events.

The Tribunal ordered that the application continue in the process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination arising from an alleged assault at a school.

The application named a Crown Attorney as a respondent, alleging he improperly advised police against laying charges.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the Crown Attorney on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the Crown's review of the police investigation and advice regarding charges falls squarely within the core elements of prosecutorial discretion and is immune from review under the Human Rights Code.

The application against the Crown Attorney was dismissed.

The applicant, a volunteer running a ping-pong program at a community centre, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any Code-protected ground.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code beyond the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the delay.

The applicant requested an in-person hearing and later written submissions, citing medical conditions, but failed to provide supporting medical evidence as directed.

On the day of the hearing, the applicant failed to attend, citing a late-arising work conflict.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a dental assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, disability, and sex by her employer.

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

The Tribunal found that even accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to any Code-protected grounds.

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

The applicants filed applications alleging a contravention of settlement by the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response despite notices and directions from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applications will proceed without further notice to the respondent, and a teleconference was scheduled.

The applicant filed an application alleging infringement of his rights under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or being untimely.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a hairdresser, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She alleged that she was subjected to vulgar name-calling and differential treatment by the respondents because she was in a common-law relationship rather than legally married.

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

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's facts as true, she could establish a link between the respondents' actions and her marital status.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an audit of the respondent to determine if it accessed his personal health information, and requesting that Loblaws Inc. be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request for an audit, noting it is akin to a Tribunal-ordered inquiry which is not a routine event and not a substitute for the usual production process.

The request to add Loblaws Inc. was also denied as the applicant provided no reasons in support.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed in the area of goods, services, and facilities, claiming he was restricted in kiosk size and denied space at a farmers' market because he is Jewish.

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

Assuming the applicant's allegations to be true, the Tribunal found that the alleged pattern of exclusion directed at Jewish people could establish a link to the protected ground.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities based on disability.

The Tribunal removed a mistakenly named respondent on consent.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application has no reasonable prospect of success, noting it was unclear whether the applicant could prove a connection between the respondent's alleged conduct and her disability.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the disposition of the applicant's concurrent WSIB claim.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability after the respondent withdrew accommodated work following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the substance of the human rights application—whether the respondent failed in its duty to accommodate—would not be addressed in the WSIB proceeding, which focused on whether ongoing ankle problems were attributable to the workplace injury.

The Tribunal also noted that the WSIB proceedings were not at an advanced stage.