John Manwaring

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call.

The applicant failed to join the call or advise the Tribunal of any difficulty.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who suffered from an anxiety disorder, left work during her shift without notifying her supervisor or employer after a conflict with her supervisor triggered an anxiety attack.

She did not return to work for the rest of the week and failed to notify the employer of her absence.

The employer terminated her employment for violating workplace rules regarding walking off the job and failing to report absences.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer did not know and ought not reasonably to have known of the applicant's disability, and that the workplace rules did not constructively discriminate against persons with disabilities.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability.

He argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence by requiring him to disclose his disability to trigger the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the duty to cooperate requires a person seeking accommodation to disclose sufficient information to enable the service provider to identify and implement appropriate accommodation, and that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration.

The applicant, who has a visual impairment and rheumatoid arthritis, alleged that the respondent library discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it enforced a 'one person – one computer' rule, preventing his daughter from assisting him at a computer station.

The Tribunal found that while the rule constituted prima facie discrimination, the respondent did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to notify the library of his need for accommodation prior to using the computer and, upon being asked to respect the rule, became upset and left the library without giving staff an opportunity to investigate his needs and propose reasonable accommodation.

The applicant, a visiting university student with a learning disability, alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of disability and citizenship.

She claimed the university failed to accommodate her by refusing to provide subject-matter tutoring, that her professors discriminated against her, and that bursary eligibility criteria discriminated based on citizenship.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university made reasonable efforts to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship, the professors' actions were based on legitimate academic concerns rather than discrimination, and the citizenship requirement for bursaries fell under the exception in subsection 16(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondents discriminated against him by failing to provide adequate French language services at his local WSIB office in Hamilton.

The Tribunal found that language is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to establish that the language issue was a substitute for discrimination based on a prohibited ground such as place of origin.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision finding it discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability while she was enrolled in a Dental Hygiene Program.

The respondent argued the Tribunal expanded the subject matter of the complaint and that an order requiring an accommodation policy was irrelevant because one already existed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the original application clearly raised the failure to accommodate and the respondent failed to enter its accommodation policy into evidence during the hearing.

The applicant, a student with lupus and a hand tremor, was dismissed from a dental hygiene program due to academic and clinical failures.

She alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability and later discriminated against her by refusing readmission.

The Tribunal found that while the substantive duty to accommodate was not breached, the respondent violated the procedural duty by failing to initiate an individualized assessment of her accommodation needs after being informed of her disability.

The claim regarding readmission was dismissed as the applicant failed to complete the application process.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in compensation and develop an accommodation policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the requirement to submit a Vulnerable Sector Screening Application for a taxi licence.

At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant requested an adjournment to obtain further documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment because the applicant could not identify the requested documents or explain their relevance.

The applicant then requested to withdraw his application, which the Tribunal granted.