Judith Keene

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions indicating whether he intends to pursue the application and why the release does not bar it, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging she was barred from the respondents' services and facilities as a reprisal after raising an issue about a perceived intoxicated patron.

The respondents requested early dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege the reprisal was linked to an attempt to claim or enforce a right under the Human Rights Code, nor did she allege discrimination based on any protected ground.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in the provision of services, specifically citing abusive calls from a collection agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a ground of discrimination or that the respondent's behaviour was in response to claiming a right under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.1, finding it lacked jurisdiction to deal with general allegations of poor service not tied to the Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The applicant failed to provide submissions establishing provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because its subject matter was the same as a complaint previously filed with and declined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely repeated arguments made previously and failed to satisfy any of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a wrongful dismissal action in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that while the civil claim mentioned race as a possible factor in the dismissal, it did not specifically claim an infringement of the Human Rights Code or seek a remedy under section 46.1.

Therefore, section 34(11) of the Code did not bar the application, and the Tribunal retained jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the grounds of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin against a taxi company and an individual driver.

The corporate respondent denied knowledge of the events or the driver.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the corporate respondent to search its records and provide the name and address of the driver who operated the specific cab at the relevant time and place, to enable the application to be sent to the individual respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by his former employer.

The Tribunal held a teleconference and discovered the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject-matter, which the Commission had declined to deal with.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits applications where the subject-matter is the same or substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a prosecutor allegedly refused to allow her to challenge a parking ticket because she had her infant with her.

The applicant requested to add the Director of Prosecutions and the Director of Court Services for the City of Toronto as respondents.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties and granted the request, finding that the threshold of showing an appearance of a Code violation was met and there was no assertion of prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a bus driver and an inspector as personal respondents.

Applying the test for adding a party, the Tribunal found that the allegations against the proposed respondents could, if proven, amount to an infringement of the Code.

The request to add the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging reprisal.

The applicant argued that her removal from a supply teachers' roster was an attack on her dignity and constituted discrimination because she was treated differently from other teachers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to link the employer's actions to any attempt to claim or enforce rights under the Human Rights Code, and that none of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 were met.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation for performing dialysis at work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed concurrent grievances under the collective agreement dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was ongoing and that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration based on the same facts and issues.

Finding that the grievance addressed nearly all issues in the application and that no circumstances warranted departing from the normal approach, the Tribunal deferred the application.

A request by the respondent to add the applicant's union as a party was also deferred until such time as the application might be continued.

The applicant alleged harassment and failure to maintain rental accommodation by her landlord based on disability, creed, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent requested early dismissal, citing previous Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal denied early dismissal, finding the current allegations were not previously addressed and could constitute a Code breach if proven.

However, as the applicant had a pending hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the maintenance issues, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Board's proceedings.

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 of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted them an extension to May 15, 2009 to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, stemming from a 1994 layoff that reduced his pension entitlement.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing prejudice due to the 15-year delay and relying on a release signed by the applicant in 1995 during a partial pension windup.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a teleconference be scheduled to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to delay or the signed release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after her name was removed from a supply teachers' roster.

The Tribunal requested written submissions to explain how the application raised matters within its jurisdiction, as no Code ground was identified.

The applicant responded that the decision was harsh, one-sided, and based on second-hand information.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness that are not linked to an attempt to claim or enforce rights under the Human Rights Code.