Josée Bouchard

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness statements prior to the hearing.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to adopt a complaints policy within a reasonable time.

The settlement did not specify a timeline for implementation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent adopted the policy within five months, which was a reasonable timeline given the election of a new board and the need for legal review.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused an order to compel disclosure from non-parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, an employee at a family-run business, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of family status by the respondent, her uncle and a managing partner.

Following a dispute between the respondent and the applicant's parents, the respondent sent the applicant offensive and vexatious emails and refused to approve her modest medical expense claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was an employee, not a partner, and that the respondent's actions constituted adverse treatment and harassment based on her family relationship with her parents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $411.72 for the unpaid medical claim, $3,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to complete human rights training.

The applicant alleged discrimination after a taxicab driver denied him service because of his service dog.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought an order compelling the production of documents regarding a commendation the driver received for an unrelated incident, intending to use them to challenge the driver's credibility.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the documents irrelevant and barred by the collateral evidence rule.

Additionally, noting a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice based on the same facts, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the Application is barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to institute a policy for investigating condominium rule violations.

Prior to the hearing, both parties requested to amend their pleadings to allege breaches of confidentiality clauses.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests to amend, finding they were filed late, raised entirely new issues, and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal also deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the Application for mootness to the hearing, and limited the scope of evidence to the specific contravention alleged in the original Application.

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

The Tribunal issued notices to schedule hearing dates, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a warning that the application could be dismissed without further notice.

As the applicant could not be contacted and failed to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed several allegations in his human rights application due to delay.

The applicant argued that his disability and lack of medical treatment caused the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was previously given opportunities to explain the delay but failed to do so, and his reconsideration request was merely an attempt to re-argue the issue.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination based on place of origin and pregnancy, and requested the production of internal investigation reports.

The Tribunal denied the request to add pregnancy allegations due to prejudice to the respondents, as the hearing was less than four months away and the original application focused solely on disability.

The Tribunal allowed the addition of place of origin allegations on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to comply with their document disclosure obligations under Rule 16.1 regarding the investigation reports.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations, which spanned several years, constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Code, and therefore were not out of time.

The Tribunal also found that the allegations were Code-based and, if proven, could establish a breach, meaning the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The requests to dismiss were denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational respondent and five personal respondents.

The organizational respondent requested to defer the application pending the completion of a related union grievance and to remove the personal respondents.

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

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud criteria, as the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability and there were no allegations of individual harassment.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his corporation, alleging discrimination based on disability and family status.

He argued that the corporation was discriminated against because it is poor, asserting that poverty is a disability, and challenged various court rules and limitation periods that distinguish between personal and corporate litigants.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding that a corporation cannot have a physical or mental impairment, poverty is not a recognized ground of discrimination under the Code, and the distinctions complained of relate to corporate status rather than a prohibited ground.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination by a vocational association and reprisal, and to add the condominium corporation and its board president as respondents.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal denied the amendments regarding vocational association and reprisal, finding no factual or legal basis, but allowed amendments clarifying the existing allegations.

The Tribunal added the condominium corporation as a respondent because its conduct was central to the dispute, but declined to add the board president personally.

The request for a summary hearing was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to strike the applicant's Reply in its entirety.

The respondent argued the Reply was repetitive, contained improper arguments, and improperly raised a claim of defamation based on the respondent's pleadings.

The Tribunal found that the Reply properly raised one new issue regarding the thoroughness of the respondent's investigation, and allowed those portions to stand.

However, the Tribunal struck the defamation claim in its entirety, finding it was barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege which protects communications made during quasi-judicial proceedings.

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

The respondents requested an order to dismiss four of the five allegations for delay, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegation.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations related to separate and independent incidents, including harassment prior to the injury and failure to accommodate during a previous contract, which were not connected to the timely allegation regarding a refusal to sign a certification form.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the earlier allegations.

The Tribunal declined to hold a summary hearing for the remaining allegation, directing it to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant and to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued the applicant had filed 27 unsuccessful human rights applications in the past five years and that an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the current application.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the current application involved distinct facts and a different respondent, and that the ESA proceeding did not address the substantive allegations of discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred on consent pending the completion of another proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a letter requesting a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond within 30 days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after a taxi driver denied her entry because she uses a guide dog.

The City of Mississauga requested summary dismissal as the applicant made no allegations of discrimination against it regarding its investigation of her complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against the City.

The applicant also requested to add the taxi driver as an individual respondent because the taxi company claimed its drivers are independent contractors.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the driver, finding his conduct central to the Application and noting the company's dispute over liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by a Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same facts and issues were the subject of an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings overlapped and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.