Jay Sengupta

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

After a multi-day hearing, the Board considered the best interests of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

Written reasons were to follow.

The applicant, a former business agent and secretary/treasurer of the respondent union local, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

He claimed that after disclosing his depression and anxiety, the respondent failed to accommodate him and subjected him to harassing communications and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, his communications did not amount to a request for accommodation that triggered the respondent's duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's communications were not harassing or reprisal, but rather standard oversight and requests to perform essential duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

Following a hearing, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The Board rescinded the society's refusal under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered the child to be placed with the applicants.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder and had made threats of self-harm, it concluded that the requirement that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate had not been met.

The application for release was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board and several personal respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization on consent.

The applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to psychological strain was denied, as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding because the school board conceded liability for their actions in the course of employment.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application, except for allegations relating to settlement discussions and counsel conduct.

A request for document production was denied as premature.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a physician.

The applicant argued that the respondent's termination of medical services upon receiving a complaint letter constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely reiterating arguments already addressed in the original hearing, where it was determined the respondent lacked the intention to retaliate and had terminated the relationship due to a breakdown in trust.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent otolaryngologist discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability and by engaging in reprisal.

The applicant missed a rescheduled appointment and subsequently threatened a human rights complaint, after which the respondent declined to provide medical services, citing a breakdown in the doctor-patient relationship.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had communicated with the applicant through his requested contact method (his family doctor) and that the termination of services was not intended as retaliation but resulted from a genuine breakdown of trust.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a civil action against her long-term disability insurer regarding the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.

The civil action involved different parties and distinct legal issues regarding disability eligibility, whereas the human rights application focused on allegations of discrimination by the employer.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application at a preliminary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that she was not properly heard during the teleconference hearing and objected to the procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions were essentially reiterations of her previous positions and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d).

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on preliminary grounds, including delay, abuse of process due to prior Minutes of Settlement, and no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time.

It held that permitting the applicant to re-litigate the incident covered by the Minutes of Settlement would be an abuse of process, rejecting her argument of economic duress.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found them liable for sexual harassment and discrimination.

They argued that the applicant's failure to produce a police report and medical records should have led to adverse inferences, and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents were attempting to re-argue issues already addressed in the original decision and had not presented new determinative evidence or demonstrated a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and place of origin after being denied payment for a cell phone and other items under the Ontario Works Program.

The respondent Ministry argued it was improperly named and did not make the decision.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the respondent was not properly named and that there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could establish a link between the denial of services and the alleged Code grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator acted in bad faith, failed to examine all evidence, and erred in interpreting the law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's arguments were reiterations of positions articulated during the preliminary hearing and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's arguments were essentially reiterations of positions articulated during the hearing and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The application was initially filed on behalf of the applicant by another individual under s. 34(5) of the Human Rights Code.

As that individual is no longer involved, the Tribunal issued an interim decision amending the style of cause to reflect that the applicant is now the sole applicant.

Following a full-day hearing on the merits and a denied request to anonymize the decision, the applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal, requesting only that the decision reflect the stage at which the withdrawal occurred.

The Tribunal granted the request, the application was withdrawn, and the file was closed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a term of their minutes of settlement by failing to provide a letter of reference, instead providing an employment verification letter that omitted agreed-upon language.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's unilateral alteration of the letter's title, language, and content constituted a fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a redrafted letter complying with the settlement terms and awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the resulting harm and frustration in her job search.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination with respect to services against the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Premier of Ontario.

The organizational respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the Premier as a personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud framework, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to name the Premier or the former Minister of Health as personal respondents, as there were no allegations of their direct involvement in discriminatory conduct.

The request to remove the Premier was granted, and the applicant's request to add the former Minister was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on race, disability, age, and reprisal during a co-op placement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code beyond his own speculation.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent filed a request for an order directing the applicant to provide additional materials, including curriculum vitae for her treating physician and physiotherapist, and more detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's witness statements lacked sufficient detail and ordered her to provide amended statements with particulars of the alleged incidents and proposed accommodations.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of the requested curriculum vitae, as the applicant did not oppose the request or argue the materials were irrelevant.