Josée Bouchard

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

The applicant argued the decision was based on incorrect information and that the adjudicator failed to consider certain evidence regarding alleged discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and repair deficiencies, and failed to establish any new determinative evidence or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights applications to increase the monetary compensation sought from $150 to $25,000.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that amendments to remedies are regularly permitted up to the date of the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original application alleged discrimination regarding a credit card application with a federally-regulated bank.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any new facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence that would justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by her instructor during an international placement in Cuba.

The instructor requested to be removed as a personal respondent, arguing the corporate respondent (the College) was liable for his actions in the course of employment.

He also requested a summary hearing on the basis that the alleged conduct occurred outside Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to be removed, noting the College had terminated his employment and denied vicarious liability, making his individual conduct central to the application.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a summary hearing, finding the jurisdictional issues would be better resolved after hearing evidence on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, record of offences, and reprisal against a community health centre and a registered nurse.

The allegations stemmed from a medical appointment where the nurse asked health questions and subsequently consulted a physician, who reported the applicant to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, resulting in a license suspension.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the treatment to a protected ground or establish an intention to reprise.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of incidents that occurred between the filing of the application and his resignation.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments did not alter the nature of the allegations or the grounds of discrimination, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application approximately 21 months after the decision was issued.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the timeline to file a reconsideration request and cited his disability.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for delay and the applicant provided no particulars on how his disability affected his ability to file on time.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a person with substance abuse and mental illness, alleged discrimination based on disability against the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care regarding access to addiction treatment facilities.

The allegations included long wait times, restrictive admission criteria, and inadequate coordination of care compared to other medical conditions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the Ministry is not responsible for the day-to-day operations or admission criteria of independent public hospitals and community health service providers.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and place of origin.

The applicant, who was on a centralized waitlist for rent-geared-to-income housing, claimed that the respondent failed to process his medical note requesting a move to a single-person unit due to chronic depression and domestic abuse.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's handling of his application to his disability or place of origin.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination based on race, place of origin, and citizenship by his co-tenants and the building janitor.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a concurrent application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the LTB proceeding.

The applicant, a former school bus driver, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin, claiming he was terminated after a student's mother made racist comments and complained to the transportation consortium.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing the termination was due to serious breaches of service standards and that they were unaware of the alleged racist comments.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application entirely, finding that the allegations of discrimination required a full hearing to determine if the respondents were aware of the comments and if racial stereotyping was a factor in the dismissal.

The application will proceed on discrete issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its human rights application as untimely.

The original application alleged that the deceased employee committed suicide due to workplace harassment and failure to accommodate her mental illness.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely re-argued its case and failed to present new determinative evidence or establish that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also noted its concern that the applicant's counsel had recorded the original teleconference hearing and submitted a transcript without the Tribunal's permission.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the interim decision denying the adjournment.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their human rights applications against the City of Ottawa and several neighbours.

The original decision found that the timely allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the remaining allegations for delay.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request in part, finding that the original decision was in conflict with Tribunal procedure because the Vice-chair had orally ruled at the preliminary hearing that there was no issue with timeliness, but then dismissed the applications as untimely without hearing submissions on the issue.

The reconsideration was granted solely on the issue of the timeliness of the allegations preceding July 29, 2013.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming he developed a dry cough due to environmental sensitivities at the respondent's office.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence of a disability and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to continue on the issue of whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on a perceived disability, as the applicant was terminated shortly after raising air quality concerns and working remotely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin after a federally regulated bank denied his credit card application.

The Tribunal initiated a summary hearing to determine if the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that lending and the granting of credit by a Schedule I bank are core banking activities that fall exclusively within federal jurisdiction under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant requested an order for the production of all arguably relevant documents under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure prior to a scheduled preliminary hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was premature as the preliminary hearing was set to address specific issues such as delay and abuse of process, not the merits of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a blanket request for all arguably relevant documents was improper and premature at this stage, as the preliminary hearing issues did not touch on the merits of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a children's aid society during a child abuse investigation following his infant's bone fracture.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address timeliness and other preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged discriminatory incident occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

Because the applicant had all necessary information to file earlier, the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a nursing student, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin, as well as reprisals, against the respondent college and its staff.

The allegations stemmed from a plagiarism investigation where the applicant was ultimately cleared, and subsequent academic difficulties.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not claimed or enforced a right under the Code prior to the alleged reprisals, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.