Judith Keene

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that its operations as a charter bus service extending into the United States and Manitoba placed it under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant responded.

Applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was permitted to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment regarding the occupancy of accommodation, specifically concerning the respondent condominium corporations' handling of his common expense arrears and the registration of a lien.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to remove the respondents' counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application outright but granted their request to schedule a summary hearing to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the same respondents should be consolidated.

Finding significant overlap in the relevant allegations of fact, common issues of fact and law, and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated for hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and sex, as well as reprisal, in relation to child custody and support proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found no connection between the alleged adverse treatment by police and court officials and any ground of discrimination protected under the Human Rights Code.

The application was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested a further extension of time to file a Response to a human rights application, citing the personal respondent's medical incapacity following a stroke.

The applicant opposed the request, noting that the respondents had recently filed a police complaint against her, demonstrating capacity to deal with legal proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed with the applicant, finding that the medical evidence did not establish an inability to file a Response, and dismissed the request for a further extension.

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

After multiple adjournments due to the applicant's and her representative's health issues, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide specific medical information regarding her need for accommodation and when she would be ready to proceed.

The applicant failed to provide the required information and effectively requested an indefinite stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's refusal to provide the necessary information while seeking an indefinite stay amounted to an abuse of process.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove its Senior Human Resources Manager as an individual respondent to an application alleging employment discrimination based on creed.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the application contained no factual allegations against the individual respondent and that the corporate respondent could provide the requested monetary remedy.

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3157 requested to intervene to protect the collective agreement and ensure the integrity of the accommodation process.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee it represents.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove four individual managerial employees as personal respondents to a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for their actions and capable of remedying any breach.

The Tribunal reviewed the jurisprudence on removing personal respondents, including the Divisional Court's decision in OHRC v. Farris, and determined that a cautious approach is warranted at the pre-hearing stage.

Finding that the allegations could support a finding of personal liability under the Code, particularly regarding harassment where vicarious liability does not apply, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents without prejudice.

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

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing obligations to deliver and file documents and witness lists.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision granting an extension.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding continue without the respondent's participation, deemed the respondent to have waived its rights to notice or participation, and deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application.

The applicant was granted time to file additional materials regarding remedies.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in WSIB and ESA proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision regarding a work-related injury and the ESA decision regarding termination pay did not deal with the subject matter of the human rights application, which included allegations of failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in a WSIB proceeding, or alternatively deferred pending a WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB decision only addressed whether a work-related accident occurred, which did not overlap sufficiently with the Code issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or defer, ordered the matter to proceed to mediation, and directed the applicant to provide an update on the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on citizenship, colour, and race.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent, which provides airport ground handling and cargo services, is a federally regulated enterprise and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the services provided are an integral part of a federally-regulated undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications alleging employment discrimination and reprisal based on disability and family status should be consolidated.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual allegations, common issues of fact and law, and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applications were ordered consolidated and referred to mediation.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the resolution of a grievance.

The applicant provided Minutes of Settlement indicating the grievance was withdrawn, and the respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant's request to add a new personal respondent was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to raising it later.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the addresses and telephone numbers of three prospective witnesses employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondents to provide this information, but the respondents instead offered to serve the subpoenas themselves.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide the contact information to the applicant, noting that a party has the right to attempt to discuss potential testimony with prospective witnesses.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed.

The parties agreed to resolve the application and entered into a written settlement.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw the application, and the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to finally dispose of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, and sex by judges during family court proceedings regarding child custody and support.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application appeared to challenge the outcome of an adjudicative process protected by adjudicative immunity.

Finding no connection between the alleged adverse treatment and any ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal, but the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code to establish good faith.

The application was dismissed.