Judith Keene

The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent filed an incomplete response using an incorrect form.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file a proper Form 2 Response, but no response was received.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a proper Response by May 14, 2010, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with disclosure obligations despite multiple Case Assessment Directions and a teleconference.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the applicant that unless she provided her witness list, witness statements, and documents by May 27, 2010, the application would be considered abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after receiving the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final opportunity to file a Response by May 13, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own motion a previous decision dismissing the application for failure to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal acknowledged a processing error, as the applicant had in fact submitted timely responses.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred by a related Small Claims Court action, as the civil claim did not specifically refer to the respondent's decision to refuse further service.

The application was permitted to proceed on the narrow issue of whether the refusal of services breached the Human Rights Code on the ground of disability.

The applicant, acting as Next Friend for a minor claimant, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment by a co-worker at her weekend job.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to anonymize the claimant's identity using initials and compelling the respondent employer to produce the last name and address of the co-worker, known only as 'Jimmy', so he could be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that anonymization was justified to protect the minor from stigma, and ordering the employer to search its records and provide the requested contact information.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

However, written submissions revealed that the grievance process was stalled due to an ongoing lock-out.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate under the circumstances and directed that the application be served on the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and race, claiming she was treated unfairly and terminated during her probationary period for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's perceptions of discrimination were based on ambiguous events and that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, including performance issues and an incident where she was unable to work due to crying.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging that the respondent continued to discriminate against her.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not take issue with the findings in the original decision but rather raised new allegations not part of the application.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could file a new application for new allegations and concluded she failed to establish any of the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The employer brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application for delay, as it was filed approximately eight months past the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe physical and mental disabilities, including CFIDS, ADHD, and GAD, which caused significant cognitive dysfunction, compounded by living in poverty.

The Tribunal admitted the applicant's medical evidence over the employer's procedural objections.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the good faith test for the delay and that the employer failed to establish significant prejudice.

The employer's request to dismiss the application was denied.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed two procedural requests.

The applicant requested to amend the application to add age as a ground of discrimination, which the Tribunal granted, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the hearing was over two months away.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, which the Tribunal also granted, noting the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the personal respondent's actions and there were no allegations of harassment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability, ancestry, and reprisal.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code and whether the application should be deferred pending an inactive union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's severe epilepsy and related medications significantly impaired his memory and cognition, establishing that the delay was incurred in good faith.

As the respondent conceded there was no prejudice, the application was permitted to proceed.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application because the grievance process had been inactive for three years.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and its staff in the handling of her workers' compensation claim.

The WSIB brought a request to dismiss the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that its decision-making functions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code, that its staff are protected by judicial immunity, and that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the WSIB's request, finding that the functions of WSIB Case Managers and Case Nurses constitute 'services' under the Code, that they do not act as independent adjudicators entitled to judicial immunity, and that the WSIB's exclusive jurisdiction under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear human rights complaints.

The applicant, an Admissions Representative, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated twice by the respondents.

The applicant had suffered a shoulder injury and experienced pain and anxiety, requiring time off work and modified duties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability under the Human Rights Code and that the respondents were aware of it.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability-related absences and the respondents' concerns about future absences were factors in the decisions to terminate his employment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $52,814.37 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to develop a human rights policy.

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

The employer requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding its preliminary objection on the basis of delay, arguing it needed the medical notes of the applicant's doctors before cross-examining them.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the employer failed to provide legal authority, did not comply with the Tribunal's rules for adjournment requests, and that denying the adjournment would not result in unfairness.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions within the required time.

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

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Canada Post.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response to the Notice.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and his union.

The employer requested dismissal of the application due to delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence might support a finding of good faith for the delay and deferred the issue to the hearing.

The union requested dismissal on the basis that it did not discriminate against the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the union's request, finding the allegations, if proven, could amount to a prima facie breach of the Code.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite being issued a Notice of Application on two occasions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by March 9, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.