Josée Bouchard

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction and a Registrar's letter.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant explained that he had requested correspondence by mail only, and it appeared he did not receive some notices sent by courier.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive notice of the proceeding through no fault of his own and that he intended to pursue his application.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications, reactivate the first application, and defer the second application pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The request to reactivate the first application was denied, and the second application was deferred, as the related grievance process, including a judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, had not yet concluded.

The applicant, a housekeeper, alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents maintained that the applicant voluntarily resigned after taking time off for illness related to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not terminate the applicant's employment, noting that the parties continued to act as though the employment relationship existed until the applicant requested her Record of Employment.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she experienced adverse treatment.

The applicant, a former security guard, brought an application alleging discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for the production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the applicant's personal memo book and any documents related to the investigation of the complaints made against him, finding them arguably relevant.

The Tribunal denied the requests for unredacted complaints, complaints against other employees or tenants, and information regarding the property management's legal counsel, as the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

Several respondents filed responses, but the respondent Advantage Inn failed to file a response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent No Response Notice.

The Tribunal ordered that Advantage Inn is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and is not entitled to further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of two related union grievances.

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievances only addressed her lost employment and not human rights issues.

The respondent supported the deferral.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and other grounds after the respondent denied his request to use space for a religiously based training program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a previous order to provide particulars and ordered him to do so immediately.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the respondent's bank statements and a list of founding members, finding them irrelevant to the application.

The applicants filed human rights applications against their property management company alleging discrimination in housing.

They brought requests for an order during proceedings to consolidate their applications, identify the landlord, add the company's president as an individual respondent, order production of work orders, and extend the time to file a reply.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the president as a respondent because there were no specific allegations against him and the corporate respondent assumed liability.

The request for production was denied as premature.

The Tribunal granted a 14-day extension to file a reply.

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

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

The Tribunal sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond might be deemed an abandonment of the application.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, arguing that the respondent's requirement to microchip her dog violated her religious beliefs.

The respondent had fined the applicant under the Provincial Offences Act for failing to microchip the dog.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the Provincial Offences Act proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and noting that the applicant could raise her religious concerns in the court proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a record of offences, claiming the respondent refused to hire him due to an unpardoned federal criminal conviction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only applies to pardoned federal offences or provincial offences.

As the applicant's conviction was federal and unpardoned, it was plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union withdrew her related grievance.

The respondent did not oppose reactivation but requested the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the allegations fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

However, noting it had not received the applicant's medical evidence intended to explain the delay, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the medical evidence within 7 days before deciding on the request to dismiss.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending a grievance process.

Following an arbitration award, the respondents requested to reactivate and dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the application alleged discrimination based on mental disability while the grievances dealt with her unjust suspension.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who has had a disability since birth, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because she was not informed about the Special Services At Home (SSAH) program until she turned 18, and was subsequently denied retroactive benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the failure to inform the applicant about the program and the denial of retroactive benefits, which are not available to anyone, did not constitute adverse treatment based on disability.

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

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a parallel claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues raised in both proceedings, including allegations of constructive dismissal, unpaid wages, and reprisal related to parental leave.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent factual findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour process.

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

The application was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance proceeding.

Following an arbitration award that dismissed the failure to accommodate and harassment allegations, the Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also sought to amend her application to include new allegations arising after the arbitration award.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it untimely and prejudicial to the respondent.

Applying the principles from Figliola and Penner, the Tribunal concluded that the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her application.

She sought to add new remedies, background information regarding domestic violence and death threats, information about a recent medical diagnosis and accommodation needs, and allegations regarding a full-time position.

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

The Tribunal also allowed the amendments regarding domestic violence and the medical diagnosis, finding them linked to the original allegations and not prejudicial to the respondent.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add allegations about the full-time position, finding the proposed amendment too vague and lacking sufficient detail.

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

The corporate respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to pursue the application by lifting the stay or reaching an agreement with the Trustee.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a claim for $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its general practice of allowing amendments to remedies sought, as the Tribunal ultimately determines the appropriate remedy and there is typically no prejudice to the respondent.