Judith Keene

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the human rights application without a hearing on the merits, arguing that they were willing to pay the full monetary compensation requested by the applicant and that continuing the hearing would be an abuse of process.

The applicant, who was self-represented, did not consent and wished to proceed to a hearing to obtain a finding on the merits, an apology, and public interest remedies.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested order without a finding of infringement or the consent of both parties.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant's desire to proceed with the hearing did not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the WSIAT and WSIB based on events that occurred 22 years prior.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether it was timely.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions or WSIAT appeal processes for Code compliance in this manner.

Furthermore, the application was out of time under section 34 of the Code, as continuing effects of past decisions do not constitute ongoing discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a practising Sikh, alleged discrimination in employment because of creed, specifically regarding the respondent's requirement that his beard be bound.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada (WSO) requested intervenor status to make submissions on the accommodation of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for intervention and granted the WSO's request, finding it was well-placed to provide assistance on the significance of uncut beards in the Sikh faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and age in respect of employment.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the alleged phone calls demanding the applicant return to work were sufficiently connected to the other allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a 67-year-old machine operator with 35 years of seniority, alleged that upon returning from a lay-off, he was subjected to an unusually heavy workload and harassment by his foreman, leading him to quit.

The respondents did not file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of age discrimination, as the adverse treatment was motivated by a desire to replace him with less-experienced, lower-paid workers and avoid paying severance.

The Tribunal awarded $27,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application alleging breach of a settlement agreement.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and that the matter be held in abeyance, as the respondent had begun making scheduled payments toward the settlement amount.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the hearing, and placed the application in abeyance until December 31, 2013, with conditions for reactivation if the respondent failed to complete the payments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability following two workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant was pursuing a concurrent WSIB appeal regarding her termination.

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB process might address whether the termination was related to her injury, it did not appear to address the separate claim of failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of her failure to accommodate claim and the respondent to provide an update on the WSIB appeal before deciding on deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offenses, specifying 'language' under the latter.

The respondent requested the removal of the personal respondent, arguing his actions were in the course of employment and no direct allegations were made against him.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the personal respondent.

Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the application amended to include 'place of origin' and 'ancestry' to properly capture the applicant's language discrimination claims, subject to any objections from the parties.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of a related grievance.

The application alleged a failure to accommodate the applicant's needs arising from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the ongoing grievance.

Following its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario, which was being appealed to the Health Professionals' Appeals Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal determined that the HPARB proceeding did not raise the same human rights issues, minimizing the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed, conditional on the applicant providing updates on the HPARB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on colour, disability, and race.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a concurrent complaint under the Canada Labour Code.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application at this stage, noting that the Canada Labour Code complaint did not cover all allegations.

Due to the respondent's failure to participate, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived its rights and accepted the allegations, and ordered the applicant to provide an update on the concurrent proceedings.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after applying for a job/placement with the respondent.

After being invited for an interview, the respondent asked the applicant her age.

Upon learning she was 45, the respondent cancelled the interview, stating the placement was not suitable.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached sections 5 and 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by making an oral inquiry about age and withdrawing the interview offer based on that information.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's offer to work without pay initially did not remove the situation from the Code's employment protections.

The Tribunal remained seized to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisal, claiming constructive dismissal following whistleblowing and a homophobic remark.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed concurrent grievances under a collective agreement raising the same human rights issues.

Applying the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights legislation, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status.

The applicant's union, United Steelworkers Local 9597, filed a Request to Intervene, arguing it may be affected by any remedy ordered.

The applicant objected to the union's participation, noting her previous allegations against the union had been dismissed.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her use of a condominium gym.

She requested an interim remedy of increased security patrols during her workouts, alleging bullying and harassment by other residents and staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the complicated fact situation was best decided after hearing all the evidence at the upcoming hearing on the merits, and noting there were no allegations of interference with the applicant's residential premises.

The applicant requested an order to reactivate his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The application had previously been deferred pending a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on jurisdiction.

The Commission declined to deal with the complaint, finding the respondent did not fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondent to file a response within 30 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications filed by different applicants against the same respondent should be consolidated.

The applications contained identical allegations of discrimination with respect to services, goods, and facilities because of race and ancestry.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

She had also filed a claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

The applicant did not respond, while the respondent supported deferral.

Finding the subject matter of both proceedings identical, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the ESA proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of family status, related to child support proceedings involving her former spouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the applicant to explain how the allegations related to the social areas and prohibited grounds of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a connection between the alleged adverse treatment in the civil justice system and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin by a Justice of the Peace and court officials.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that white lawyers received adjournments while he did not, that a confidential directive instructed court officials to discriminate, and that he was improperly denied an audio recording of his hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant had no evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.