Judith Keene

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and harassment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking particulars and an extension of time to file their Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its rules require respondents to file a complete response prior to making preliminary objections, except in limited circumstances not present here.

The respondents were directed to file a complete Response within 21 days.

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

The Tribunal previously requested submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration procedure.

As both parties and the union agreed to the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted them a final extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging that the decision exceeded a 'maximum standard award' for general damages, that there was an apprehension of bias, and that there were factual errors in the decision.

The Tribunal found that the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the factual errors pointed out by the respondent were not determinative of the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a Black man of Caribbean descent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of colour, specifically regarding a failure to promote and a subsequent layoff.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its promotion decisions, noting that the individuals promoted were either more qualified, willing to work required shifts, or of the same colour and place of origin as the applicant.

Regarding the layoff, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it was due to an economic downturn and that the selection criteria were based on performance, experience, and operational needs.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had resigned after refusing a recall to work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment during workplace training.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application on the basis that it is a federally-regulated interprovincial bus transit company.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall within federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In an interim decision prior to a human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The self-represented applicant was permitted to amend his application to add age discrimination and specific details regarding his disability and accommodation requests, as the respondent was already aware of these allegations and would not be prejudiced.

The applicant was ordered to produce documents relating to his efforts to mitigate damages.

The respondent was ordered to make best efforts to obtain and disclose statistics concerning the age and race of the pre-layoff employee population, which were relevant to the applicant's claim of disproportionate impact.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure obligations and prior Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant lacked legal representation and had Code-related needs that made compliance difficult.

Balancing fairness to both parties, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application.

Instead, it imposed procedural restrictions, limiting the first day of the hearing to the applicant's case and allowing the respondent to postpone cross-examination if prejudiced by the lack of prior disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding police attendance at her home during a tenant dispute.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the events were currently the subject of an appeal by the applicant to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that the Commission must apply and interpret the Code in its review, and directed the applicant to request to proceed within 60 days after the Commission proceedings conclude.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company providing services to airlines operating international and interprovincial flights.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall within federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an order to proceed with her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

The applicant's grievance was withdrawn without prejudice to her Tribunal application.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the matter to mediation or a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the respondent are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal within one year if the stay is lifted by the Bankruptcy Court, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing the unavailability of a witness.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the intended evidence of the unavailable witness appeared irrelevant to the matters at issue, as it pertained to the applicant's job performance which the respondent did not dispute.

The Tribunal directed that the hearing proceed as scheduled, with the possibility of an adjournment if the evidence later proved relevant.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to communicate his intention to either reschedule the mediation or proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant telephoned the Tribunal to advise she could not attend.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requiring her to explain her absence and indicate whether she wished to proceed or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and other grounds, following his termination.

During a case management teleconference, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for disclosure of employee termination records and his potential request to amend the application to add age as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide specific data regarding terminated employees and set out steps for the applicant to formally request an amendment and issue a summons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and several individual employees.

The corporate respondent requested an order to remove the personal respondents, accepting responsibility for their actions under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the corporate respondent is liable for the actions of its employees in the course of their duties and is in a position to satisfy any remedies ordered.

The applicant, who had diabetes and other health issues, mistakenly believed she had contracted tuberculosis and informed her employer.

She was dismissed shortly after, ostensibly for poor judgment in coming to work and for making a discriminatory remark about a co-worker.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to inquire into her medical situation and that the dismissal was partly motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her future disability-related absences.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The moving party filed a request for reconsideration of a final decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding wheelchair accessibility and undue hardship.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day time limit specified in the Tribunal's Rules.

The adjudicator found no basis to waive the time limit and noted that the moving party was attempting to adduce new evidence that could have been obtained earlier or reargue points already decided.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

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

The originally named corporate respondents requested that the application be dismissed against them, claiming they never employed the applicant.

The applicant requested to add a new corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to dismiss, finding it premature as successor corporations can sometimes be liable.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the new respondents, noting that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation and there was no response opposing the request.