Janice Sandomirsky

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to move the case to a tribunal decision hearing.

The tribunal determined the applicant abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested access to condominium records including board meeting minutes and auditor reports.

The respondent provided minutes for only two meetings held in 2020 and stated no 2018 auditor report existed.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent provided all existing records, the board meeting minutes were inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as they failed to record numerous business decisions made by the board outside of formal meetings.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty but awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting access to various corporate records.

As a preliminary issue, the applicant argued the respondent's board of directors lacked a quorum and therefore had no authority to retain an agent or participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the board had improperly attempted to reduce its quorum requirements without a valid by-law amendment and had subsequently lost its quorum.

The Tribunal proceeded without the respondent's participation and ordered the respondent to provide the requested records to the applicant at no cost.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

After the applicant indicated they no longer wished to continue and failed to respond to subsequent directions, a Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued.

The parties did not provide submissions, and the Tribunal dismissed the case as abandoned under Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the authority of the respondent condominium corporation's board of directors to retain and instruct a representative, arguing the board had lost quorum due to resignations.

The Tribunal found that retaining a legal representative is a business matter requiring a quorum under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The hearing was adjourned for 45 days to allow the respondent to demonstrate it has quorum or to take necessary steps to remedy the situation.

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

Neither party complied with their disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant failed to serve and file the required materials by a specified date.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or file the materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination by a police officer who allegedly used offensive language and acted aggressively during a dispute over a towed vehicle.

The respondents requested a deferral pending a judicial review in an unrelated case, which the Tribunal denied.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or disability.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm attendance at the scheduled hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's policy of not funding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for asymptomatic men constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and age.

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

Relying on a previous decision that found the funding policy was based on medical efficacy rather than sex, and noting the lack of evidence linking the policy to age discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights applications against her employer and union for failing to make out a prima facie case.

She argued the Tribunal erred in finding she presented no medical evidence of a disability, pointing to a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal held that even if it erred in not referencing the Code's definition of disability, the applicant still failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because the evidence showed the respondents investigated and accommodated her noise complaints.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a Research Scientist at Laurentian University, alleged that the University discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex, and engaged in reprisal, when it closed the Central Analytical Facility (CAF) liquid phase and did not renew her contract.

The Tribunal found that the decision to close the facility was based on legitimate financial and program concerns, including the need for significant investment to upgrade equipment and an accreditation review, rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against her employer and union, alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association on the basis of sex and disability.

The complaints stemmed from a dispute over the volume of a radio played by co-workers and alleged subsequent harassment.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no medical evidence of a disability and failed to show that the alleged harassment or the respondents' handling of her complaints was based on her sex.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a South Asian woman, alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin when her employment as a Branch Manager was terminated during her probationary period.

She pointed to an incident where a customer refused to speak to an 'Indian' manager and alleged subsequent differential treatment by her supervisor.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation that the applicant was terminated for failing to meet performance expectations to be credible and more probable than an inference of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and involved a matter of public importance, submitting materials related to school expulsions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue the substance of his complaint and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant alleged that the Ontario Ministry of Health discriminated against him on the basis of sex by refusing to fund a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for prostate cancer, while funding mammography screening for breast cancer in women.

The Tribunal accepted expert medical and epidemiological evidence demonstrating that, unlike mammography, PSA screening for asymptomatic men has not been shown to reduce mortality and carries significant risks of over-diagnosis and harmful treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the funding distinction is based on the medical efficacy of the respective screening tests and their consequences, rather than on the sex of the individuals being tested.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent breached a 2002 settlement agreement regarding the provision of Braille labels on exercise equipment.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis of delay, as the complaint was filed in 2007, more than one year after the alleged breach.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting his lack of participation in implementing the settlement and his continued use of the facility over several years without raising formal concerns.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The respondent school board sought early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of educational services related to a 2005 school expulsion.

The applicant filed the complaint in November 2007, more than two years after the expulsion.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as pursuing other litigation processes (such as an expulsion appeal) does not excuse the failure to pursue Code rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination from employment.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a labour arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that section 45.1 did not apply because the arbitrator did not consider human rights allegations.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding that all relevant facts were before the arbitrator and allowing the application to proceed would amount to re-litigating the termination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim alleging his disability was a factor in his termination.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established jurisprudence, noting the employer was unaware of the applicant's medical difficulties prior to termination.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria under Rule 25.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal in the respondent school board's failure to hire him in 2006 and 2007, and sought to include earlier allegations of discrimination dating back to 1995.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2006 allegations were out of time and could only be used as background information for the reprisal claim.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents from the application, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for its employees and capable of responding to the alleged Code infringements.