Josée Bouchard

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, delay, or because the matters were dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the application required a hearing on the merits to resolve factual disputes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that prior WSIB and Ministry of Labour proceedings did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The application was allowed to proceed, and the parties were directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to revise accessibility policies and train staff regarding Deaf, Deafened, and Hard of Hearing patients.

The Tribunal found the Application was filed outside the six-month limitation period under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also noted that, in any event, the respondent had complied with the settlement terms by reviewing its policies and implementing mandatory staff training.

The Application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant's counsel to provide a Certificate of Ancillary Appointment of an Estate Trustee, as the applicant was deceased and the estate trustee was appointed in Chile.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under Rule 74.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a foreign estate trustee must seek recognition of their powers over estate assets in Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's counsel to confirm within 14 days whether he intends to obtain the Ontario Certificate, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, and disability, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to transfer requests, cleaning duties, parking, and vandalism, finding no evidence linking the events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding racially offensive and disability-related notes posted on the applicant's door and a bulletin board to proceed, finding that the issue of whether they created a poisoned environment required a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent requested an order to defer the application pending an appeal and proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal issued two Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to clarify the nature of her appeal and respond to jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to respond to both directions within the specified timelines.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex (pregnancy).

She brought requests for an order during proceedings to amend her application to add remedies and to add the corporate employer as a respondent.

The respondents opposed and requested the removal of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests to amend the remedies and add the corporate respondent, finding no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents as premature, noting the corporate respondent had not accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add a claim for $25,000 in damages and to order the respondent to produce documents regarding overtime worked by Operational Managers.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application on consent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for document production, finding it overly broad and not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of discrimination based on disability regarding the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

They argued that the personal respondent's acquittal on a criminal charge of sexual assault appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to provide the criminal trial transcript and that it would be unfair to preclude the application given the different burdens of proof, parties, and scope between criminal and human rights proceedings.

The applicants, a minor and her mother, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by a cooperative preschool.

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

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications, granted the request to anonymize the minor applicant's identity, and granted an adjournment due to the applicants' medical conditions following a motor vehicle collision.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing, finding that a full hearing on the merits was necessary.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents as parties, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and could satisfy any remedies sought.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on place of origin and citizenship.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

However, the applicant subsequently failed to attend a scheduled case management hearing and did not respond to a Case Assessment Direction inquiring whether she intended to proceed.

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

The applicant's counsel requested to proceed with a human rights application on behalf of the deceased applicant's estate using a broad power of attorney rather than a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The Tribunal held that it will not process the application without a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, as it is required to confirm the authority of the estate trustee to act on behalf of the estate.

The applicant was ordered to confirm intent to obtain the Certificate within 14 days or face dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding the denial of an Individual Special Circumstance Arrangement.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a concurrent grievance under the collective agreement dealing with the same facts and issues, which was in the process of being settled.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a WSIAT appeal.

The respondent opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the WSIAT decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the WSIAT appeal had concluded, and ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately 17 months after her termination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for the conclusion of a union grievance process and was unaware of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings and ignorance of the law do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a physician, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex and marital status against her former co-tenants.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that there was no employment relationship.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address whether the application was untimely.

At the hearing, the applicant requested to amend her application to add recent allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to untimeliness, lack of particulars, and prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for a related Small Claims Court matter to conclude or changing legal representation did not constitute valid explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found them liable for discrimination based on sex and creed, and reprisal.

The respondents argued that they were denied natural justice when their adjournment request was refused, and that the Tribunal erred in its findings of fact and damage awards.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the decisions regarding the adjournment and amendments were not final decisions subject to reconsideration.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondents were merely attempting to re-argue issues already decided without presenting new evidence or showing a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicants filed requests to re-activate and consolidate their human rights applications against the respondent.

The applications had previously been deferred pending grievance proceedings, which were subsequently withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding it appropriate to re-activate the applications and consolidate them given they involve the same respondent, subject matter, and arise out of the same set of facts, avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant sought to amend a human rights application to add her daughter as a claimant and include allegations that the daughter experienced the same discrimination as her son regarding the respondent school board's failure to accommodate their medical condition.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that adding the daughter was the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the matter.

The respondents requested to add VP Protection Inc. and GDI Services (Canada) LP as respondents, and to remove Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. as a respondent in a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that both VP Protection and GDI could potentially be held liable for the actions of their employees during the relevant periods.

The Tribunal also found that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. was a separate corporate entity with no involvement in the facts at issue.

The Tribunal ordered that VP Protection and GDI be added as respondents, and that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. be removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming a taxi driver refused him service due to his certified service dog.

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

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was some evidence reasonably available that could support the allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed to a two-day hearing to determine liability, including whether the respondent taxi company is vicariously liable for the driver's actions.