Judith Hinchman

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend the scheduled hearing or comply with disclosure obligations.

The applicant argued that other factors existed outweighing the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated submissions that were previously considered and rejected.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 25.5.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination in a hiring process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and ignored evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case and disagreeing with the adjudicator's factual findings, which does not satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The respondent landlord brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had made factual findings regarding the landlord's failure to meet maintenance standards, delayed repairs, and rent issues, but had not considered the applicant's allegations of racial discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, ruling that the LTB's factual findings could not be relitigated, but allowing the discrimination issues to proceed.

The Tribunal also granted the request to remove a paralegal as a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the decision only reflected the respondents' positions, her complaint was arbitrarily transferred, the decision was discriminatory for not using her name, and it failed to consider her children.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue evidence, the transfer was done by her own signed form, referring to parties by title is standard practice, and the original complaint only dealt with one child.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 25.5.

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own initiative an interim decision that dismissed the applicant's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted that the transitional rules require parties to be given an opportunity to make oral submissions before an application is dismissed under section 45.1.

Because the interim decision was based solely on written submissions, the Tribunal withdrew the interim decision and scheduled a date for oral submissions before a new adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on age, disability, and place of origin.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the corporate respondent seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental distress based on the same factual circumstances.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application covered the same subject matter and sought remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The application was dismissed as barred by s. 34(11).

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age in employment after the corporate respondent did not offer him an IT Team Lead position following an interview.

The applicant claimed the respondents were surprised by his age and made comments about his seniority.

The respondents argued the applicant was not hired due to a lack of specific technical skills (Blackberry Enterprise Server), poor personality fit, and salary expectations.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanations credible and reasonable, concluding that age was not a factor in the decision not to hire the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of breach of settlement and reprisal following his termination.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by a Board of Referees hearing and an ongoing union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding that the Board of Referees did not address the human rights issues and the arbitration had not yet resulted in a final decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the arbitration award.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing or provide required disclosure.

Despite claiming illness, the applicant did not notify the Tribunal in a timely manner or adequately explain her failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Children's Aid Society and its employees regarding court-ordered affidavits prepared in a custody dispute involving her great-nephew, and the Society's failure to investigate her concerns.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondents were not providing a 'service' to the applicant within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The services, if any, were provided to the child and his parents or guardians, not the applicant, meaning there was no Code-protected relationship between the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The applicant subsequently left voice messages claiming she was too ill to travel.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately, instead directing the applicant to provide medical documentation explaining her absence and her failure to notify the Tribunal in a timely manner, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in accommodation regarding condominium parking.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were barred because the applicant had previously commenced and then consented to dismiss a Small Claims Court action regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the Small Claims Court did not deal with the substance of the applications, the matter was not settled, and there was no abuse of process.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents.

The applicant, a shipper/receiver, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (sciatica).

After presenting a doctor's note outlining work limitations, the respondents sent him home and shortly thereafter terminated his employment, citing a lack of available work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in their procedural duty to accommodate by making a hasty decision to terminate without meaningfully exploring accommodation options.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with 15 weeks of lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination after being barred from picking up materials at a quarry.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there was no employment or contractual relationship, and for delay, as the complaint was filed more than a year after the incident.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide further written submissions on the nature of the contractual relationship and whether the delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice.

The applicant sought to add Southwire Canada Company, Gentoma Company, and Gentek Inc. as respondents to his human rights complaint, arguing they were successor corporations to his former employer, Noma Cable Tech Ltd. The Tribunal declined to add Southwire, finding it was a complete stranger to the complaint and had purchased assets months after the applicant's termination.

Regarding Gentoma and Gentek, the Tribunal ordered them to provide affidavits detailing their legal relationships with Noma Cable before deciding whether they should be added.

The respondent union requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that found it responsible for a poisoned work environment arising from discriminatory comments.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding standing, corporate responsibility, and poisoned environments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision correctly applied established case law and that the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case.

The respondent failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on disability sought an order for the production of numerous documents.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and denied orders for documents the respondents claimed to have already produced, documents that did not exist and would need to be created, and documents outside the relevant time period.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce a list of correspondence sent to the applicant while she was on sick leave, and deferred other contested production issues to be addressed at the upcoming Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant, who self-identifies as having a cognitive disability, filed a human rights application alleging that York University's Osgoode Hall Law School discriminated against him by requiring an LSAT score and refusing to waive it.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant never actually applied to the law school, the requirement was never imposed on him, making the application premature.

The Tribunal also found that the law school's website description of its Access Applicant Category did not indicate an intention to discriminate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in contracts, arguing that a pay equity plan negotiated by the respondent and the intervenor union unfairly excluded his male-dominated job class from receiving a pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the complaint was essentially about the negotiated pay equity plan under the Pay Equity Act, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pay Equity Commission and the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applicant did not allege any discrimination in the valuation process or negotiations, and thus failed to raise a Code breach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex, and family status against a Justice of the Peace, the Crown Attorney's Office, a school principal, and a police officer.

The allegations stemmed from a judicial Release Order that precluded the applicant from communicating or associating with his son.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that adjudicative decisions of the courts are not 'services' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code, and that the actions of the other respondents were either mandated by or inextricably linked to the terms of the Release Order.