Judith Keene

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment and requested that the matter be expedited.

He argued expedition was necessary to prevent the destruction of relevant e-mails and to preserve the possibility of reinstatement before his former position was filled.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the circumstances were not truly urgent.

The Tribunal noted that concerns about evidence preservation could be addressed through an order during proceedings, and that the Tribunal has the statutory power to order reinstatement even if a replacement has been hired.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal, specifically regarding the respondents' alleged failure to accommodate her inability to wear a mask due to claustrophobia.

The applicant requested that the application be expedited under Rule 21, alleging threats of termination.

The respondents denied the threats and stated they were continuing to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found that the facts were not so urgent as to warrant expediting the proceeding and directed that the matter proceed in accordance with its usual practices.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, seeking accommodation to perform dialysis at work.

The applicant requested the matter be expedited.

The respondent opposed, stating accommodation had already been provided.

Noting that the applicant had also filed a union grievance regarding the same facts, the Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the parties and the union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant, who has a neuromuscular disability, requested an interim remedy requiring her apartment building's superintendent to assist her with opening specific doors.

The Tribunal applied the test for interim remedies under Rule 23, finding that the application appeared to have merit, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and the remedy was just and appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to ensure the superintendent assists the applicant when requested until the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, along with a request to expedite the proceedings.

The applicant argued the Tribunal should not defer its process despite an ongoing grievance.

The respondent requested that the applicant's union be added as a party.

The Tribunal directed the respondent and the union to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance, with the applicant given an opportunity to respond.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and failure to maintain rental accommodation by her landlord and unidentified tenants based on disability, creed, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent landlord requested early dismissal, arguing the matters had already been dealt with by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the unidentified tenants for lack of specific facts and identifying information.

Regarding the landlord, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear evidence on the specific actions alleged, their timing, and whether section 45.1 of the Code bars the application due to prior proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability after his guide dog was refused entry to the respondent bed and breakfast.

The facts were also the subject of a prosecution under the Blind Persons' Rights Act.

The Tribunal had previously asked for submissions on whether to defer its proceedings pending the prosecution.

However, the Crown Attorney subsequently withdrew the charge against the respondent.

As there was no longer another proceeding, the Tribunal held that deferral was no longer an issue and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant filed an application alleging her employment was terminated as a reprisal for participating in a harassment investigation.

She requested to expedite the proceedings, citing concerns that her termination might negatively affect her sponsorship of her husband and step-son for immigration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding no current indication of adverse consequences to the immigration process that would justify prioritizing the application over others, but noted the applicant could renew the request if circumstances changed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated as a reprisal for participating in a harassment investigation.

She requested that the application be expedited, citing financial hardship and the potential loss of her home.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that while the loss of a home is a significant consequence of termination, it is not an unusual one and does not constitute truly urgent circumstances requiring priority over other matters.

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

She brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to add a former employee as a personal respondent, as she previously did not know his surname.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for adding a party and found that the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of a Code violation.

The Tribunal also found no substantial prejudice to the proposed respondent.

The request to add the personal respondent was granted.

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

The applicant's union, UNITE HERE Ontario Council, requested to intervene in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene as a non-party observer, allowing it to attend mediation and make submissions as to remedy at any subsequent hearing, given its significant interest as the bargaining agent for employees in the workplace.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, following his termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 53(8) of the Code, arguing the application was based on the same facts as an earlier complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the earlier complaint focused on a failure to accommodate, whereas the current application deals with the subsequent termination and alleged reprisal, which were not part of the earlier complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent, an immigrant women's service organization, discriminated against him on the basis of sex and disability by providing services to his ex-spouse that allegedly encouraged her to falsely claim abuse and leave him.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not provided services to the ex-spouse since June 2006, well outside the one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his only evidence consisted of general statements from the respondent's website which did not constitute a violation of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, attaching a document signed by all parties confirming a settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

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

Both parties agreed to defer the proceeding until grievances filed on behalf of the applicant have been dealt with in accordance with the collective agreement.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the ground of disability, along with a request to expedite due to the impending closure of the corporate respondent's facility.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide information about its ongoing operations and assets in Ontario to assess the risk of flight.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide a status update on related grievances and a duty of fair representation application to determine whether the human rights application should be deferred.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Directive requiring a response by February 4, 2009.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal discovered he had moved without updating his contact information.

The Tribunal contacted him through an alternate number and ordered him to provide the required written response by February 18, 2009.

The respondents requested an order to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of concurrent grievances related to his alleged dismissal or demotion over workplace harassment allegations.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were related to the ongoing grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, noting that the applicant would have the opportunity to have his grievances proceed to arbitration.

The respondent requested an order striking several paragraphs from the Commission's hearing brief and an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal struck paragraph 16, which dealt with unreferred reprisal allegations, and paragraphs 26-28, 30, and 31, which dealt with unreferred disability accommodation allegations.

Paragraphs 29 and 32 were retained as they contained potentially relevant information.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to address the adjournment request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability.

The same facts were the subject of an ongoing prosecution under the Blind Persons' Rights Act.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide an update on the prosecution and to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred or dismissed under sections 45 and 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.