Judith Hinchman

The applicant sought to add a personal respondent to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment.

The proposed respondent had filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which typically stays proceedings.

However, because the applicant confirmed she would only seek non-monetary remedies against him (such as human rights training), she was no longer considered a creditor with a claim provable in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent.

The applicant sought to add three respondents to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment: Fast Mart, Obsidian Group Inc. (the franchisor), and Jason McKnight (the personal respondent).

The Tribunal denied the request to add Fast Mart, finding no allegations connecting it to the events.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Obsidian, noting that franchisor liability is a matter for the hearing and there was no prejudice.

The request to add Jason McKnight was deferred pending submissions on the effect of his recent bankruptcy proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant, a 19-year-old, alleged that police officers discriminated against him based on his age when they issued him a trespassing ticket for being in a park after curfew.

He claimed that older individuals in the park were ignored and that a police initiative, Project LEARN, targeted college-aged students.

The Tribunal found that the officers were on routine patrol and issued the ticket because the applicant was in the park after the 10:00 p.m. curfew, not because of his age.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that his age was a factor in his treatment and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a seasonal municipal worker, alleged discrimination and harassment based on her sexual orientation and same-sex relationship with a co-worker.

She claimed that co-workers fabricated complaints against her, that management conducted a biased investigation, and that her subsequent transfers to different work locations were discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed older allegations for delay and found that the workplace tensions and subsequent management actions were related to interpersonal conflicts over resources, not the applicant's sexual orientation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin following an altercation at a grocery store express checkout lane.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had more than the permitted number of items and that the ensuing argument with the cashier and store owner was not motivated by the applicant's race or other enumerated grounds.

Although a third-party customer made offensive racial remarks during the incident, the store owner and staff appropriately intervened and attempted to de-escalate the situation.

The application was dismissed.

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

Subsequently, the applicant commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same factual allegations and seeking damages for Code infringements under s. 46.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced.

The applicant, a single father and atheist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society discriminated against him on the basis of creed, sex, family status, and marital status during a child protection investigation and custody dispute.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints related to the quality of his interactions with the respondent and that he failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged poor treatment to a prohibited Code ground.

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

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the claims of perceived disability, harassment, poisoned work environment, and reprisal, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the alleged workplace mistreatment to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim to proceed solely regarding an allegation that a manager stated he was only comfortable mentoring younger people.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the respondents' employee and volunteer lists to identify a proposed witness.

The Tribunal found that the confusion over the witness's name had been resolved and the applicant had already filed his witness list without the unidentified individual.

The request for production was therefore denied as unnecessary.

The applicant's request to add a party was also denied due to a lack of details.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex, claiming she was terminated because she had been on pregnancy leave.

The respondent employer, a non-profit childcare provider, demonstrated that during the applicant's leave, it closed two centres due to declining enrolment and implemented automated phone and email systems, which eliminated the need for the applicant's receptionist position.

The Tribunal found that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a 2009 Tribunal decision that awarded her $3,000 for discrimination on the basis of disability.

She sought to increase the remedy to include a full tuition refund and legal costs, which she had not requested during the original hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the delay of over two and a half years was not incurred in good faith and that the applicant failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure.

The applicants, two female youth hockey players and their mother, filed human rights complaints against the Brampton Youth Hockey Association (BYHA), its president, and the Ontario Hockey Federation (OHF).

The daughters alleged discrimination on the basis of sex regarding their exclusion from team dressing rooms, unequal changing facilities, and discriminatory comments from teammates.

The mother alleged reprisal after she was removed from a volunteer committee for filing the complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the OHF's dressing room policy was not inherently discriminatory, the BYHA discriminated against the daughters by failing to provide equal access to pre- and post-game activities, failing to arrange comparable changing rooms, tolerating discriminatory comments, and failing to investigate their complaints.

The Tribunal also found that the BYHA and its president committed a reprisal against the mother.

The applications against the OHF were dismissed.

The BYHA was ordered to pay a total of $18,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a probationary caretaker, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sexual solicitation against a fellow caretaker and the school board.

He claimed the fellow caretaker made sexual advances and used a racial slur during an altercation, and that the employer failed to investigate and reprised against him by extending his probation, transferring him, and terminating his employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no sexual solicitation, that the alleged slur was either not made or did not amount to discrimination in the context of a heated altercation initiated by the applicant, and that the employer's actions were based on legitimate performance and behavioural concerns rather than reprisal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued that the decision was biased, misapplied the law, and ignored evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new determinative facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence, and was merely attempting to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his applications against his union and school board for lack of a prima facie case.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to appropriately consider his audio recordings and witness testimony, and raised allegations of bias and perjury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue evidence already considered and failed to present any new facts or establish any criteria under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, alleged that the respondents suspended his access to their dispatch system based on his race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for failure to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking his suspension to any discriminatory grounds, noting that the suspension followed an investigation into his alleged violation of TTC Wheel-Trans rules.

The Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious the application was certain to fail and dismissed it.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, several individual respondents, and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sexual solicitation.

Following the applicant's evidence, the respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union in its entirety, finding no evidence of differential treatment or reprisal.

The Tribunal also dismissed several allegations against the employer and individual respondents, including allegations of sexual assault and failure to investigate sexual solicitation.

However, the Tribunal allowed allegations regarding discriminatory comments based on Italian heritage and related reprisal to proceed to a hearing.

The self-represented applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the adjudicator's prior brief meeting with the respondent's counsel and her conduct during the hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that a reasonable and informed person would not conclude that a brief introduction in 2004 or the adjudicator's efforts to maintain decorum and limit evidence to the scope of the applications gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him in employment and vocational association on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin, and reprised against him for pursuing Code-related rights.

The Tribunal previously dismissed most allegations for failing to establish a prima facie case.

In this decision, the Tribunal considered the remaining allegations regarding comments allegedly made by five clergy members.

The Tribunal found that many of the comments were not made, and those that were did not amount to discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, finding that the respondent's provision of financial assistance and counseling contradicted claims of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that evidence given by a union representative before the Ontario Labour Relations Board be accepted as uncontested facts in the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB had only assumed facts for the purpose of a motion to dismiss and had not made actual findings of fact regarding the disputed evidence.