Judith Keene

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One respondent, Michael Achaibar, failed to file a Response after being served with the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent that failure to file a Response within 5 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming him to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police service on the basis of creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the allegations were timely and within its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found that at least some allegations occurred within the one-year limitation period and related to areas covered by the Code.

Applying the plain and obvious test, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the entire application was beyond its jurisdiction, allowing the matter to proceed.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing without notice or explanation.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction based on an Employment Standards Officer's determination, and sought costs.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, noting that an Employment Standards Officer's conclusion does not dispose of whether there was a breach of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and pursue the proceeding.

The request for costs was denied as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant, an Iranian immigrant whose first language is Farsi, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex.

She claimed her employer undervalued her work, failed to support her, and unfairly terminated her employment after she allegedly failed to report a client's disclosure of past child abuse.

The Tribunal found that the employer breached section 5 of the Human Rights Code by forcing the applicant to deal with a difficult co-worker without support despite known language barriers, and by hastily terminating her employment based on an ambiguous reporting policy while treating a non-immigrant employee more leniently for similar safety breaches.

The Tribunal awarded $12,012 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the financial remedies sought in her human rights application from $10,000 in general damages to $16,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

As the respondents consented to the amendment, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the application accordingly.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision warning that the application would be considered abandoned if the applicant did not provide written submissions in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to submit any response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was initially dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to a Request for Order seeking dismissal based on a signed release, and subsequently failed to respond to an Interim Decision requesting submissions.

The applicant cited mental illness, hospitalization, and incarceration as reasons for his failure to respond.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to provide specific written information and evidence regarding his circumstances and the signed release before deciding whether to grant the reconsideration.

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 a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred his human rights application pending an Income Tax Act appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure only allows for reconsideration of final decisions.

The Tribunal found no reason to exercise its discretion to vary the procedural ruling and reminded the applicant of the process to revive the application once the other proceeding concludes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment following a suspension.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the union had unilaterally withdrawn the grievance without prejudice, and the substance of the human rights allegations was never dealt with.

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

The employer filed an application alleging that the employee breached a settlement agreement by failing to complete a medical assessment.

The settlement required the employer to select a medical specialist in collaboration with the employee's doctor to assess her accommodation request.

The employee attended the appointment but the specialist terminated the evaluation after she asked questions about who would receive the report.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to collaborate with the employee's doctor and that the employee was willing to proceed with the evaluation.

The application was dismissed as the employer failed to prove a breach of the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to file written submissions identifying the personal characteristics under section 5 of the Human Rights Code at issue in his application.

The applicant failed to respond or provide the required submissions.

As the application did not identify any ground of discrimination or basis for a Code violation, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to deal with general allegations of unfairness.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment by her landlord and other tenants on the basis of disability, creed, age, and receipt of public assistance.

She claimed the landlord failed to maintain her unit, made derogatory remarks to a repair person, and failed to address harassment by a neighbour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no connection between the maintenance issues and Code grounds, and concluding that the other allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

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

He argued that the respondent provided fake evidence and inconsistent testimony, and that the Tribunal should not have believed the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions did not meet any of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as the material presented was already part of the record and considered in the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences, stemming from his interactions with court administration staff and a prosecutor regarding a Provincial Offences Act prosecution against his son.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the matter fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it was not plain and obvious that all allegations, particularly those relating to clerical functions in the prosecutor's office, were beyond its jurisdiction, and allowed the application to proceed.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of the allegations.

In an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, the applicant requested the production of financial and student registration documents.

The respondents failed to respond in time but later claimed the documents were irrelevant, and filed their own requests to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction and to adjourn the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce financial data related to restructuring and student registration statistics, finding them arguably relevant to the respondents' claim that the applicant was terminated due to restructuring and low enrolment.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' requests to dismiss and adjourn, noting no clear jurisdictional bar and no extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent communication from the Tribunal requiring her to advise of her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and several of its employees on the grounds of disability and age.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that statutory decision-making is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it is not plain and obvious that decision-making falls outside the broad definition of 'services'.

The Tribunal directed a conference call to hear further submissions on jurisdiction, statutory immunity under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, family status, and marital status regarding the administration of the Child Tax Benefit, specifically the right of a non-resident female spouse to file a waiver on behalf of her spouse.

The respondent requested early dismissal or deferral of the application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding it was not plain and obvious that the benefit administration was not a service, and that other court proceedings did not satisfy section 45.1 of the Code.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing appeal process with the Canada Revenue Agency.