Judith Keene

The applicant, who has visual disabilities including myopia and colour blindness, alleged that his employer failed to accommodate him, failed to investigate his complaints of discrimination, and terminated his employment as a reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by not initiating inquiries despite knowing of his disabilities and the difficulties caused by a change in computer screen colours.

The Tribunal also found the employer failed to adequately investigate his complaints.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's termination was partly a reprisal for asserting his human rights.

The claim of harassment against a co-worker was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The employer was ordered to pay $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages, and to implement a human rights policy.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous decision finding they breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the applicant's hearing disability and service dog.

They also requested the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging she fabricated and omitted evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

She also dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the respondents failed to establish any new facts, conflict with jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions under Rule 26.5.

The respondent requested reconsideration of two previous Tribunal decisions that deemed it to have accepted the applicant's allegations of age discrimination due to its failure to file a response.

The respondent argued that internal management conflicts caused its former General Manager to fail to respond to the Tribunal's notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had received proper notice of the application and the consequences of failing to respond, and that fairness did not warrant setting aside the decisions to allow a late response.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant, a restaurant manager, was dismissed shortly after being hospitalized for a cardiac condition.

The respondents claimed the dismissal was due to poor performance and that the decision was made prior to learning of the hospitalization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's heart disease and diabetes constituted disabilities under the Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to prove that performance was the sole reason for dismissal, finding that the applicant's need for a disability-related leave and his impending eligibility for benefits were factors in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Tribunal awarded $19,240 for lost wages and $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide necessary medical information regarding her need for accommodation and when she would be ready to proceed to a hearing, effectively seeking an indefinite stay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and denied the request.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment and uses a service dog, alleged discrimination based on age and disability during an employment prescreening orientation for a security guard position.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims but found that the respondents breached the Human Rights Code on the ground of disability.

The respondents asked inappropriate questions about the applicant's disability, failed to accommodate his request for the instructor to wear a portable microphone, and subsequently dismissed him from the orientation.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to complete human rights training.

Following a merits decision finding discrimination based on age, the Tribunal remained seized on the issue of compensation for wage and benefits loss.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to contact the Registrar within 30 days to schedule a further conference call to provide evidence establishing his entitlement.

The applicant failed to contact the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Tribunal made no order in respect of compensation for wage or benefits loss.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The applicant's request for particulars was denied, while his request to amend the application to add a claim for monetary compensation was granted.

The union's request to intervene was granted over the applicant's objections, as the union had a requisite interest in the matter.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of concurrent grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal and failure to accommodate.

The respondent did not oppose the request but filed additions to its response.

The Canadian Auto Workers union requested intervenor status to address its efforts to accommodate the applicant.

The Tribunal granted both the request to amend the application and the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed late and that the arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding no duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal noted the potential application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, which allows dismissal if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal ordered a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

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

The applicant's collective bargaining agent, the Niagara Regional Police Association, filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, and recognizing that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by its members regarding employment, the Tribunal granted the Association leave to intervene.

The scope of the intervention was deferred to the merits hearing.

The applicant sought remedies following a liability decision finding the respondent discriminated against her based on age by withdrawing an employment offer.

The Tribunal awarded $1,815 for loss of opportunity, finding a 50% likelihood she would have continued employment beyond an initial unpaid placement.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the arbitrary and humiliating nature of the summary rejection.

The applicant, a taxi driver, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondents banned taxi drivers from using the washrooms at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport passenger transfer facility.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the facility is a federal undertaking subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics and navigation.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ordered the parties to provide updates on that process to determine whether deferral is appropriate, with a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction to follow if necessary.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The grievance arbitrator determined he lacked jurisdiction over the entire grievance.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the application to proceed, and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC declined to deal with the complaint on the basis that the respondent falls under provincial jurisdiction.

As the respondent did not oppose the request, the Tribunal ordered the Application to proceed and directed the Registrar to set a mediation date.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her application as abandoned due to her failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant indicated she had retained counsel but provided no submissions of fact or law corresponding to the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request for Reconsideration.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend his human rights application and re-activate it from deferred status.

He submitted a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding him to be a person with a disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had not provided information on whether his appeal of the April 2008 WSIB decision had been concluded, which was the condition for the deferral.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Small Claims Court wrongful dismissal action against the corporate respondent.

Having received the required documents confirming the Small Claims Court matter was officially concluded, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that its operations as a charter bus service extending into the United States and Manitoba placed it under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant responded.

Applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was permitted to continue.