Judith Keene

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging sex discrimination and reprisals: one against her union and a fellow member, and another against her employer.

A Request for an Order During Proceedings was filed to have the two matters heard together.

The applicant consented, and the employer respondent did not respond.

The Tribunal found it reasonable to hear the applications together and ordered them consolidated for hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, and requested an expedited process and an interim remedy to be posted to a different position due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

Regarding the interim remedy, the Tribunal noted the respondent had not filed a response and ordered the respondent to either consent to the requested posting or file a response to the request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, giving the applicant 30 days to file submissions.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision advising the applicant that unless written submissions are received by a specified date, the application will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents requested and were granted an extension of time to file their Response, but failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response within 7 days may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the ground of sex.

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions directing the applicant to provide a mailing address for the respondents to confirm notice, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding the Coroner's refusal to convene an inquest into her mother's death.

In an interim request, the applicant sought a declaration of contempt against the respondent for allegedly failing to disclose relevant documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the contempt request, noting it lacks jurisdiction to make such a finding and declining to state a case to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal reviewed the requested documents, ordering the production of certain emails found to be arguably relevant, while finding the remaining documents irrelevant to the age discrimination claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging a provision of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) that makes accessibility advisory committees mandatory only for municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing parliamentary privilege.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to supervise the legislative process.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining how his personal rights under the Human Rights Code were infringed by the remaining respondents, as the Code does not grant jurisdiction to rule on the bare question of whether legislation breaches the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and requested that the application be expedited due to the effects of being fired.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant had resigned.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances were not so urgent as to warrant giving the application priority over others and dismissed the request to expedite.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a Code violation.

The Tribunal noted the applicant did not identify a protected ground of discrimination or allege facts constituting a reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

Given the applicant is self-represented and has language difficulties, the Tribunal ordered him to provide written submissions clarifying the alleged Code violations before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities, employment, and contracts on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the prohibited ground of record of offences does not apply to the social area of goods, services and facilities.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The respondent hospital brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and was filed outside the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case, noting the low threshold at the preliminary stage and that the allegations, if true, could establish a violation.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a 1994 layoff that reduced his pension entitlement.

The respondent requested early dismissal due to delay and a signed release.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith due to language barriers, the respondent established substantial prejudice because relevant documents and witnesses from the 1994 restructuring were no longer available.

The application was dismissed under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant was terminated from his employment after taking time off to attend to his newborn son's medical appointment and his spouse's medical emergency.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer's requirement that the applicant take no more time off work adversely affected him due to his family status.

The Tribunal held that the employer failed to meet both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate, as it did not inquire into the applicant's needs or establish that accommodating him would cause undue hardship.

The application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay $20,000 in general damages and $3,500 for lost wages.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the ground of disability, challenging the Ontario Drug Benefit Program's limit on coverage for a specific prescription pain medication.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be expedited, stating he could not afford the medication without coverage.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the circumstances were not truly urgent, noting the respondent's submission that the applicant could consult his doctor for alternative covered pain medications.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the application, arguing it was barred by a release signed by the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he intended to pursue the application and why the release did not bar it, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of its Rules of Procedure.

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

The respondent filed a partial response requesting early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine the preliminary issue of the release, noting that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires affording parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing harassment and a five-day suspension.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were based on substantially the same facts and human rights issues as the application.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the denial of sick time for medical appointments and failure to accommodate.

The employer and union respondents requested early dismissal or, alternatively, deferral pending an ongoing policy grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, noting that such a disposition requires an opportunity for oral submissions.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for deferral, finding that the concurrent grievance process might resolve aspects of the application, particularly regarding the use of personal days for sick leave under the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent Children's Aid Society improperly disclosed her medical information to the respondent Family Respite Services, which then refused to hire her.

The Children's Aid Society requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the privacy complaint involved different legal issues and potential remedies, and that proceeding with the human rights application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

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

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.