Josée Bouchard

The applicant, who uses a certified service dog, was denied service by the owner of a UPS Store franchise.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the franchisor, MBEC Communications Inc., arguing it was vicariously liable for the franchisee's discriminatory actions under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that while the franchisor exercised some control to protect its brand, it did not have substantial control over the day-to-day operations of the franchisee.

The franchisee operated as an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the franchisor.

Consequently, the franchisor could not be held liable for the franchisee's actions, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary dental receptionist, alleged that her former employer terminated her based on her age and subjected her to sexual harassment during her employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, embellished, and lacking credibility.

The respondent provided credible evidence that the applicant was terminated due to poor performance and that she was replaced by a receptionist of a similar age.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence of age discrimination or sexual harassment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following his termination.

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement, with union advice, that included a full and final release of all claims in exchange for a $15,000 lump sum.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under economic and psychological duress and without reading it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had the capacity to understand the clear terms of the release, received sufficient consideration, and failed to establish that he was subjected to illegitimate pressure amounting to coercion of his will.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on disability against a condominium corporation, its management, and its legal counsel.

The respondent law firm brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the applications against it, arguing it was retained by the condominium corporation and had no service relationship with the applicants.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a condominium corporation is a distinct legal entity from its unit owners, and the law firm was in an adversarial relationship with the applicants.

The request to dismiss the applications against the law firm was granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add four employees of the corporate respondent as personal respondents to his human rights application.

Applying the factors from Smyth and Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to add the individuals, as the corporate respondent was already a party, there was no issue regarding its vicarious liability or ability to remedy alleged Code infringements, and the applicant would not be prejudiced.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking a determination that the respondent breached settlement privilege by disclosing protected communications, and requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself for having reviewed them.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the privilege issue had already been addressed in a prior case assessment direction and that reviewing documents not entered into evidence does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination based on age and physical condition related to the 2014 municipal election process and internet voting.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications.

Finding that the applications involved the same parties, subject matter, and type of alleged discrimination arising from the same facts, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant, a seasonal outdoors caricature artist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts based on marital status and gender by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

Finding that the applicant's narrative only described general unfairness regarding a modified vendor permit and failed to connect the respondent's actions to any Code-protected ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

Two of the respondents filed for bankruptcy and submitted Notices of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal held that human rights proceedings seeking monetary relief are claims provable in bankruptcy and are therefore subject to the statutory stay under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed against the bankrupt respondents, while proceedings against the remaining personal respondent continued.

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

The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the individual respondents, who were acting within the scope of their employment, and that the corporate respondent could satisfy the remedies sought.

The applicant did not demonstrate any prejudice from their removal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on sex and reprisal.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was terminated because of belligerent behaviour caused by his disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a concurrent complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) regarding the same issue and seeking the same remedy of lost commissions.

The Tribunal found that the ESA complaint would address the same facts and allegations as the human rights application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and subsequent directions from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The respondents requested an order during proceedings to redact a document containing the personal information of third parties from the applicant's written particulars.

The document listed the names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of executive members of a federal riding association.

The Tribunal found that the document contained personal information that was not arguably relevant to the application, although the fact of the applicant's membership on the executive was relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the document redacted to protect the privacy interests of the non-parties.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of a main witness who had to care for her daughter following dental surgery.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the inability of a single witness to attend a multi-day hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, and that the scheduled hearing time could still be used to hear other witnesses.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing a final exam and a doctor's appointment.

The Tribunal requested written proof of the exam and medical appointment.

The applicant provided a class schedule and a sleep study requisition, neither of which confirmed the dates of the alleged conflicts.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services because of disability, claiming that the respondent's computer-based menu boards were inaccessible due to his low vision.

The respondent requested the removal of its Regional Vice President as a personal respondent and sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to include him.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to establish a link between the alleged inaccessibility of the menu boards and his disability, noting his admission that most people find the boards difficult to see.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he was not rehired at a newly constructed school.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a union grievance that resulted in a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS).

The Tribunal found that the MOS constituted a proceeding that dealt with the same facts and subject matter, and that the applicant received financial compensation specifically for the age discrimination allegations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the delay, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

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