Judith Keene

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary administrative assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a permanent position.

The respondent employer asserted that the successful candidate had a broader skill set and that the applicant had minor performance issues.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision was based on the successful candidate's experience and the applicant's past performance, rather than race or colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by her employer following her return to work after cancer treatment and a bereavement leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged incidents occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the delay was partly due to a paralegal failing to carry out instructions and the applicant's disability-related challenges.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that a request to extend the time limit under section 34(2) of the Code would fail, and ordered the application to be served on the respondent.

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

The respondent requested an order for the applicant to provide information relevant to damages.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file materials under Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly refused to accept the Tribunal's rulings regarding the scope of the hearing, insisting on litigating issues related to the Coroner's jurisdiction under the Coroners Act rather than discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's persistent refusal to follow directions and attempts to relitigate issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction thwarted efforts to deal with the merits.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the Chief of Peel Regional Police as a personal respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services because of disability.

The applicant consented to the removal.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that no material facts were pled against the Chief of Police, there was no issue of vicarious liability, and the corporate respondent could provide the requested remedies.

The Request was granted and the Chief of Police was removed as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed in part due to a prior settlement and deferred in part due to ongoing grievance arbitrations.

The Tribunal found that the portion of the application relating to discipline for refusing to disclose criminal charges had been settled in a grievance process, and dismissed it as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal deferred the remaining allegations, which were the subject of ongoing grievances, pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The respondent requested the dismissal of an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was a claim for breach of contract and did not seek remedies for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, section 34(11) of the Code did not apply to bar the application.

The respondent's request for dismissal was denied, and it was ordered to file a full response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex after he was not interviewed for a Lawyer Assistant position.

The applicant claimed he attended the respondent's office for a scheduled interview but was told he had no appointment, and observed only non-Caucasian female staff in the reception area.

The respondent explained that the applicant had been given the address for the wrong office location by mistake.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant offered no evidence to rebut the respondent's explanation or to show the respondent was aware of his personal characteristics when the error occurred.

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

After retaining counsel, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application to add further particulars.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the hearing date had not yet been set and the timing did not raise issues of unfairness to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing accommodation based on disability, specifically regarding the respondents' refusal to permit accessibility modifications.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, having made findings on the failure to accommodate and ordering remedies.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the resolution of a grievance and subsequent WSIAT proceedings.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant, a former overnight cleaner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and age, claiming he was uniquely required to work weekends.

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

The evidence showed that other non-Black employees in the same role also worked regular weekends, and the applicant had a documented history of absenteeism and tardiness leading to progressive discipline and ultimate termination.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing discrimination or reprisal, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who suffered from depression and a hypothyroid condition, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The applicant was subjected to homophobic slurs and derogatory text messages about his weight by his supervisor and coworkers.

The corporate respondent's management was aware of the harassment but dismissed it as 'shop humour' and failed to investigate.

The applicant was subsequently terminated after a physical altercation with a coworker.

The Tribunal found that the harassment created a poisoned work environment and that the applicant's involvement in the fight was partly a reaction to the harassment and his depression.

The Tribunal held the personal respondents and the corporate respondent liable, awarding the applicant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application after she failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that the dismissal discriminated against her on the basis of disability, as she had requested a telephone hearing three days prior to the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient medical information to establish a Code-related need for the requested accommodation, despite being given the opportunity to do so.

The respondent requested an order compelling the applicant to provide available dates for a teleconference or medical evidence supporting her representative's unavailability.

The Tribunal declined to make the requested orders but directed the applicant to provide specific information regarding any disability-related accommodation needs and to provide available dates for both a teleconference and the hearing within five days.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to produce documents, citing the identification of approximately 38,000 pages of materials.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the production deadline, noting its responsibility to ensure efficiency and expedition in proceedings.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal, and requested further documentary disclosure from the respondents.

The respondents consented to some amendments but objected to others, arguing they would require a new hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations flowed from the original complaint and that hearing all matters together would be efficient.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to disclose requested documents relevant to the applicant's claim that he had alerted them to his disability-related difficulties prior to his leave.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging racial discrimination in employment filed a request for an order requiring the respondent to produce documents related to the investigation and discipline of other employees.

The respondent objected on privacy grounds and argued the request was a fishing expedition for impermissible similar fact evidence.

The respondent also requested an order prohibiting the applicant from calling certain witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for production, finding the documents arguably relevant to the core allegation of differential treatment, subject to privacy protections.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to prohibit witnesses, noting the respondent failed to adequately explain why the witnesses should be barred.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents relating to job competitions prior to June 2008.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it should not be put to the time and expense of producing over 2000 documents and that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent's request to dismiss the allegations had already been denied in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose documents arguably relevant to the job competitions between 1991 and 2006.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application after his union refused to refer his grievance to arbitration.

The respondent contested the reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it unclear whether a union's refusal to refer a grievance to arbitration constitutes a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1, and granted the applicant's request to proceed.