Josée Bouchard

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant provided decisions indicating the Ministry of Labour proceeding had concluded, and the respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions responding to the NOID but failed to do so.

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

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of scheduling records, training reviews, a specific customer comment card, and the contact information of thirteen employees.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the scheduling and training records as agreed, but denied the request for the comment card as it was no longer in the respondent's possession.

The Tribunal also denied the request for employee contact information, finding it overly broad and lacking explanation as to the relevance of their evidence.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated employer.

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

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent made unprofessional comments about him to his mother when she requested his record of employment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the events were unrelated to the discrimination allegation and occurred after the employment relationship ended.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the hearing on the merits had not yet been scheduled and the new allegations were linked to the employment outlined in the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant provided a copy of the WSIAT decision indicating the proceeding had concluded, and the respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to re-activate the application and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

The applicants requested an order to amend their human rights applications to add race, colour, ancestry, and sex as grounds of discrimination, and to add a request for a public interest remedy.

The applications originally alleged discrimination based on disability and association with a person identified by an enumerated ground, arising from a nightclub bouncer denying them entry.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent, who did not file a response to the request.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application.

The original decision found that poverty is not an enumerated ground under the Code and that a corporation cannot have a physical or mental impairment.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace bullying and harassment based on ethnic origin.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed union grievances based on the same facts, which were scheduled for arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that the Grievance Settlement Board had jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the workplace.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral and also requested to remove the union as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievances.

The Tribunal also granted the union leave to intervene, recognizing its interest as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged that the co-owner of the restaurant sexually harassed her while he was intoxicated.

She also alleged that the restaurant failed to take her complaints seriously, forcing her to resign.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner subjected the applicant to inappropriate sexual comments and touching, amounting to sexual harassment and solicitation.

The Tribunal also found that the corporate respondent failed to investigate or address the matter, creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $9,440.52 for lost wages, along with public interest remedies including human rights training and policy development.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent hospital placed discriminatory restrictions on his ability to visit a patient while accompanied by his service animal.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the identity of a staff member involved in a security incident and unedited security video recordings of the incident.

The Tribunal found the requested information and documents to be arguably relevant to the allegations and ordered their production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and other grounds, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration board had jurisdiction to hear the human rights issues, explicitly considered the employer's duty to accommodate, and awarded the applicant $20,000 in human rights damages.

Concluding that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

After the Tribunal contacted the applicant to inquire about her intentions, she indicated she was too busy to take time off work and did not respond to further inquiries.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

In its response, the respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its business, which involves interprovincial and international trucking, is federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the City of Mississauga.

She argued the City breached its duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate her complaint of discrimination regarding a taxi service, and that the Tribunal breached natural justice by not holding a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the City was not in an employment or service relationship with the applicant, but merely enforcing its by-laws, and therefore the allegations were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent union grievance dealing with the same subject matter was ongoing.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondent and the union supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral avoids duplicative proceedings and conflicting decisions.

The applicant, a temporary seasonal employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed his manager refused to sign a Ministry of the Environment form required for a drinking water operator certificate because of a previous workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the manager refused to sign the form because the applicant had not accumulated the required hours of operating experience and the form contained inaccurate information.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant's injury was a factor in the manager's decision and dismissed the application.

The parties each filed applications alleging the other breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to immediately examine partnering with the Township for parking by-law enforcement.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached confidentiality by discussing the settlement with the Mayor and a Township employee.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding the respondent took appropriate steps to implement the agreement and the applicant did not disclose confidential information or did so with the respondent's waiver.

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

At the hearing, the respondent indicated that the named respondent, Mary-Am Group, was not a registered corporate entity.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove Mary-Am Group and add three interconnected corporations as respondents.

Applying the common employer doctrine, the Tribunal found sufficient interconnectedness among the proposed respondents to support a potential finding of liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the non-legal entity and adding the three corporations as respondents.