Judith Hinchman

The applicant, a student in a dental assistant program, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents failed to accommodate her physical restrictions during a required practicum.

The applicant requested shorter shifts due to injuries from a motor vehicle accident, but the respondents did not adequately investigate or explore accommodation options, leading to her failing the practicum and receiving an incomplete.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in their procedural duty to accommodate the applicant's disability to the point of undue hardship.

The respondents were ordered to pay $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding to prevent the applicant from adding marital status as a ground of discrimination, to strike certain allegations, and to remove a personal respondent.

The Tribunal refused to add marital status as a ground because it was not part of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal struck allegations relating to pay disputes predating the applicant's injury and allegations relating to his spouse.

The Tribunal refused to remove the personal respondent, finding his conduct central to the allegations.

The personal respondents were directed to file their late responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because sign language interpretation was not provided at an all candidates meeting.

The respondent, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that it lacked the statutory authority to regulate or fund all candidates meetings.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent's powers under the Election Act and Election Finances Act are limited to administering the election process and educating the public about voting, and do not extend to all candidates meetings.

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

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action included claims for damages based on the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's disability under the Human Rights Code.

Applying section 34(11) of the Code, the Tribunal held that the application was barred because the applicant had asked a court to find a Code infringement and award damages.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, husband and wife, filed separate human rights applications alleging discrimination by the respondents.

The Tribunal directed that the applications be processed together due to similar facts and issues.

The applicants objected, arguing prejudice and lack of authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the objections, finding it had authority under its Rules to process the applications together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, and that doing so would not cause prejudice.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on the respondents' preliminary objection that the applications were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already dismissed the underlying complaints.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent organization, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, race, and colour, as well as a poisoned work environment and a failure to investigate her complaints.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decisions regarding salary increases and performance reviews were based on legitimate business and performance considerations, not discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant was not subjected to a poisoned work environment and that the employer did not fail in its duty to investigate once it became aware of her concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment at a salon because she required a sick leave, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents maintained they terminated her because she failed to attend work after expressing anger over a denied vacation request and stating she would not return.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had no knowledge of any disability or need for sick leave prior to the termination.

The application was dismissed as the termination was based on non-discriminatory reasons.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the corporate respondent's business, which involves inter-provincial truck and rail transportation, is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent is engaged in transportation works extending beyond the limits of the province, placing it within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.