Josée Bouchard

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to obtain legal representation and gather further documentation.

The respondents consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the late retention of counsel and the desire to gather more documents do not constitute exceptional circumstances, especially for a summary hearing where the applicant is only required to indicate what evidence he will rely upon.

The applicant, who uses a service dog for her disability, alleged that her neighbour discriminated against her based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

The dispute centered around signs the applicant posted on her condominium door indicating the presence of a service dog, which the respondent repeatedly complained about to property management.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's persistent and demeaning complaints regarding the service dog signs created a poisoned environment, amounting to discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation.

The allegations regarding receipt of public assistance were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded $200 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

After the Tribunal issued multiple directions requesting the status of the other proceeding and the applicant failed to comply or respond to the respondent's request to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondents failed to pay the agreed $1,300 in general damages and failed to complete the required human rights training, though the applicant could not prove they failed to post a Human Rights Code card.

The Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the settlement and ordered them to pay the original $1,300 plus an additional $2,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by the breach.

The respondents requested to remove the individual respondent, a school board employee, from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individual respondent's actions, the individual was acting within the scope of her employment, and the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedies.

Finding no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her employment and termination.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already addressed in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the prior arbitration decision dealt with the same facts, applied the Code, and awarded general damages for the human rights allegations.

Applying the principles from Figliola and Penner, the Tribunal concluded the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the applicant's allegation regarding a racial slur on a bulletin board to proceed.

The respondents argued the allegation was untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that the interim decision failed to provide reasons on this issue.

The Tribunal found that while the interim decision was subject to reconsideration, the respondents did not meet the threshold criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting the interim decision was based on preliminary submissions and the respondents could still raise the timeliness issue at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking clarification of the role of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) in the human rights application.

The applicant requested that OECTA either be declared a party and directed to provide information, or be removed as an addressee and participant.

OECTA confirmed it was not named as a respondent and had no intention of seeking intervention status.

The Tribunal ordered that OECTA receive no further notices of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

He claimed that after an incident with a student, he was falsely accused of making a racist comment, which led to negative references and a failure to secure long-term occasional teaching positions.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that his race or related grounds were factors in his treatment, or that he was subjected to reprisal for asserting his human rights.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on multiple grounds.

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

The respondent did not participate.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and ordered the application to proceed.

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

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

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than two years after the deceased employee resigned and subsequently committed suicide.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient information within the one-year limitation period to file an application, as evidenced by communications with a former colleague and the filing of a WSIB claim based on similar allegations.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal related to events that occurred after she began her maternity leave.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, prejudicial, and included privileged settlement communications.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations related to continuing exchanges between the parties and would not require additional witnesses, thus causing no prejudice to the respondents despite the late stage of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police discriminated against her on the basis of disability, creed, family status, and marital status during various interactions between 2010 and 2016.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to incidents in 2010 were out of time and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to any evidence that her disability, creed, family status, or marital status was a factor in how the police treated her during their investigations, child apprehensions, and subsequent criminal charges.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a housing cooperative and individuals, alleging discrimination in housing based on race, creed, marital status, and reprisal.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal considered requests to add and remove various personal respondents and to amend the applications.

The Tribunal declined to add the Board of Directors or its individual members, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal added the Coopérative Coordinator as a personal respondent to one application due to allegations of harassment, which attract personal liability.

The Tribunal allowed unopposed amendments to the applications and concluded that the applications had a reasonable prospect of success, directing them to a full hearing on the merits.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was provided with notice.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that its business as a telecommunications contractor for Rogers Communications falls under federal jurisdiction.

Relying on a recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision involving the same respondent, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to displace the strong presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Manulife Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's submissions that the employer was federally regulated.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination based on disability in the provision of medical care at the respondent's emergency room.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and ignored his evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent college regarding a 2014 leave of absence, inappropriate comments by professors, and a group assignment where students refused to work with him.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2014 leave of absence allegations as untimely, finding the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the professors' comments and the group assignment to proceed, finding sufficient notice was provided and the respondent failed to establish they had no reasonable prospect of success.