Judith Hinchman

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated submissions made at the original hearing and failed to cite any conflicting case law or Tribunal procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

The applicant argued that the recent closure of his former workplace constituted a new determinative fact and disputed the adjudicator's findings regarding his termination.

The Tribunal found that the workplace closure was not relevant to the discrimination claim and that the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue his case.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 25.5.

The applicant tenant alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin, and engaged in reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's failure to provide proper notice of a rent increase, delay in repairing his unit after construction damage, and failure to pay interest on his last month's rent deposit.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the rent increase notice issue was an administrative error, the interest payment policy was applied equally to all tenants, and there was no evidence linking the repair delay to Code-protected grounds.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the required elements were not met.

The applicant, a former Assessor/Case Manager, alleged that his employer and manager discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnic origin, culminating in his termination.

The applicant claimed he was subjected to psychological abuse, denied opportunities, and treated differently than a favored 'inner circle' of employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's termination and the manager's actions were based on legitimate work performance issues, including extraordinary tardiness and failure to maintain up-to-date client files.

The application was dismissed as the evidence did not support the allegations of discrimination or harassment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents failed to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the central allegation of failure to accommodate occurred in 1997, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that subsequent refusals to accommodate were continuing effects of the original decision, not a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against three police services, alleging discrimination and reprisal based on false statements made in 2003 about his mental stability.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the core incidents occurred between 2003 and 2005, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the ongoing effects of the 2003 statements constituted a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's generalized fear of reprisal did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant alleged that her employer and its president discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex, specifically alleging sexual harassment and reprisal leading to her termination.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged sexual and age-related comments to be unreliable and uncorroborated by witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that no sexual solicitations or advances occurred, the employer had no duty to investigate as it was unaware of any allegations, and the termination was based on work performance issues rather than discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application, arguing the Tribunal lost jurisdiction when the original applicant died and that the Trustee Act does not permit an estate to carry a human rights application.

The respondents alternatively requested deferral pending a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that human rights claims are statutory, not common law actions, and do not abate upon death.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application because the civil action sought only pay in lieu of notice and did not allege human rights violations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a Case Resolution Conference.

She argued there were new facts regarding the accuracy of time sheets and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, citing the suspension of her early childhood care certificate and the Psychologist Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the time sheet evidence could have been raised earlier and would not change the determinative findings, the certificate status was irrelevant, and the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue her case.

The request did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 25.5.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a portion of an Interim Decision that declined to dismiss certain allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the aspect of the Interim Decision identified for reconsideration was not a final decision, as no conclusive findings were made regarding the continued allegations.

The request for reconsideration was denied as premature.

The applicant, an ordained minister, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the respondent church and a personal respondent regarding the handling of his proposal for a Mandarin-speaking ministry and comments made by a committee.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1, finding that an internal church investigation was not a 'proceeding' under the Code.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the handling of the proposal for failing to establish a prima facie case.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination and reprisal regarding alleged comments made by the Pastoral Care Committee, requiring a response from the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on breach of settlement and reprisal, following his termination for sexual harassment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the labour arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the arbitrator fully addressed the issues, applied human rights principles, and provided adequate safeguards.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, colour, and ethnic origin when they rejected his application for an Investment Executive position.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the required direct sales experience for the position and was therefore not qualified.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that his non-Canadian experience or ethnic origin played any role in the hiring decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society and its workers discriminated against him on the basis of sex and ethnic origin during a child protection investigation involving his family.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that their interactions with the applicant did not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondents were providing services to the children, not the applicant, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a bilingual relocation consultant, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

She claimed she was hospitalized for severe anxiety, instructed not to speak French in the office, harassed by co-workers, and ultimately terminated due to her ethnic origin and disability.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish she had a disability within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination or harassment based on ethnic origin, noting the employer's request to use English in internal meetings was a reasonable courtesy to unilingual staff.

The application was dismissed, as the termination was based on performance issues and there was no evidence of reprisal.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability (multiple chemical sensitivity) against his employer and union.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a prior union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had fully addressed the issue of accommodating the applicant's disability, including his need for a smoke-free workplace, and dismissed that portion of the applications.

However, the Tribunal found that the arbitrator did not address the applicant's allegations of harassment and reprisal.

The request to dismiss was granted in part, and a hearing was ordered for the remaining claims.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, alleged discrimination based on place of origin regarding the respondent's requirement for original documents for teacher certification.

Relying on a previous Divisional Court decision involving a similarly situated applicant, the applicant requested production of documents relating to that other applicant's file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to the applicant's specific claim that the respondent's requirements prevented his qualifications from being assessed at all.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in housing accommodation on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an earlier Interim Decision, seeking to introduce a Parking Agreement they inadvertently omitted, which they argued settled the accommodation issues.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, allowing the respondents to make oral submissions on the effect of the Parking Agreement at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to remove four personal respondents from the applications, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceedings against them as the corporate respondents assumed responsibility for their actions.

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

Following the applicant's death, the respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred this issue pending confirmation of the estate representative.

The Tribunal also considered whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to an ongoing wrongful dismissal civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege or seek remedies for a breach of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination in employment one year and seven months after the alleged incident.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.