Josée Bouchard

The applicant filed multiple Requests for an Order During Proceedings in a human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add information about a medical diagnosis, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to order a specific witness to testify, noting the applicant could summons the witness directly.

Finally, the Tribunal noted the respondents failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and ordered them to produce their documents and witness lists by a specified deadline, deferring the applicant's request for production of documents until after that deadline.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the application to add a ground of reprisal, request particulars for witness statements, and request production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide particulars regarding expected witness testimony and to produce the requested documents or file submissions explaining why they cannot be produced.

The request to amend the application was deferred to be heard as a preliminary matter at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her environmental sensitivities to second-hand cigarette smoke.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had concurrent jurisdiction, the applicant had a full opportunity to present her case, and the legal issues and facts were essentially the same.

Finding no unfairness in applying issue estoppel, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

After being warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant missed the extended deadline and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the respondent, a finance manager at a car dealership, based on comments made in a Small Claims Court Defence and actions during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the comments in the Small Claims Court Defence were protected by absolute privilege.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no facts connecting the alleged unfair treatment to his age.

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

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates regarding the arbitration.

When the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications by the extended deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

After advising the Tribunal that he would not attend the scheduled mediation because he found a new position, the applicant failed to attend the mediation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the completion of Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicants, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

After the applicants failed to respond to multiple requests, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day deadline set out in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if the request had been timely, the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration, as she did not present new determinative facts or raise issues of general importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested to defer a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, arguing that concurrent proceedings were ongoing before the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

The Ministry file was closed, leaving only the College proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the College complaint was only at the initial investigation stage and that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 creates an absolute statutory privilege preventing any findings from the College proceeding from being admitted in the Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB regarding her Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation despite a delay in filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application when it determined that the applicant's return-to-work plan was suitable and adequately accommodated her disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual, verbal, and physical harassment by a co-worker between 2002 and 2009.

She delayed filing the application because she was pursuing a claim with the WSIB, which was ultimately denied.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that pursuing WSIB benefits does not justify a failure to file a human rights application in a timely manner, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent union requested early dismissal, arguing that a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the applicant upon her return to work contained a full and final release of the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal reviewed the agreement and found that the clause in question was an indemnity for statutory deductions, not a release of claims related to the duty to accommodate.

The request for early dismissal was denied, and the applicant was directed to provide further submissions detailing her allegations against the union.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a related WSIAT proceeding.

The request was filed 2.5 months late.

The respondent WSIB opposed the reactivation on the basis of delay and requested dismissal 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 reactivation, finding the delay was brief, due to an oversight, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the s. 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

She argued the proceedings concluded with a Labour Arbitration Award.

The respondent opposed, noting the arbitrator remitted the issue of remedy to the parties and remained seized.

The Tribunal found the grievance proceedings had not concluded and denied the request to reactivate, keeping the application deferred.

The applicant requested an extension of time, disclosure of exam copies, and access to his student email accounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the extension of time unnecessary due to a rescheduled hearing, and the document disclosure request premature under Rule 16.

The respondents noted the exam copies had been destroyed in accordance with college policy.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because she would be a hospital inpatient on the hearing date due to serious health concerns.

The respondent opposed the request, noting preparation and scheduled time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that medical treatment preventing attendance constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to his membership in a vocational association.

The Tribunal previously deferred the proceeding pending a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter requesting a status update and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the inquiry.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide disclosure materials by the specified deadlines.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race, colour, and gender identity by the Superior Court of Justice – Family Court.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to challenge the outcome of an adjudicative process.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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