Judith Keene

The respondent school board sought early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, arguing that the matter was being addressed in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the grievance process had not yet concluded.

However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability in respect of housing accommodation, claiming her landlord laughed at her and did all the talking during a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing.

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

Finding no evidence linking the respondent's alleged actions to a Code ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that it lacked facts to support a Code violation and that the matter had been appropriately dealt with in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding regarding health and safety.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the allegations could potentially establish a Code violation if proven, and noting that the OLRB proceeding was withdrawn before the issues were addressed.

The Tribunal directed the matter to a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 due to a pending grievance.

Both parties submitted that deferral was inappropriate because the subject matter of the respondent's WSIB appeal pre-dated and differed from the incidents in the application.

The Tribunal agreed, declined to defer the application, and directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

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

As a related grievance was pending, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant and the union agreed to the deferral, while the respondents did not file a response.

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

Additionally, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene in the application, noting its interest in any potential remedy or settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by police officers during an arrest.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application, arguing that the matter was being investigated by the OIPRD and that criminal charges were pending against the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the respondent provided insufficient information about the status of the other proceedings.

The Tribunal also amended the respondent's name to the Toronto Police Services Board, noting that the Board is vicariously liable for the actions of police officers under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability (multiple sclerosis) after being denied OHIP funding for an angioplasty procedure.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of an appeal before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

Following the conclusion of the HSARB proceeding, which explicitly declined to consider the human rights issues due to the concurrent Tribunal application, the applicant filed a request to proceed.

As the respondent made no submissions, the Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of a public complaint under the Police Services Act.

The applicant subsequently failed to file written submissions or attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the respondent's Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program.

Following mediation and changes to the program, both parties requested that the application be held in abeyance pending the introduction of a new government program that would likely resolve the remaining issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the clear progress toward settlement and the unusual circumstances of the case, and ordered the application held in abeyance until December 31, 2012.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, the respondents requested an order for the immediate production of the applicant's medical records.

The Tribunal found the records arguably relevant as the applicant put her mental health in issue, but denied the request as it was made too late in the proceedings, without prejudice to raising it later.

The Tribunal also deferred a request for a witness to testify by telephone and denied the respondents' request for a summons for the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding the respondent's refusal to hold an inquest into her mother's death.

The applicant brought a preliminary request to strike the respondent's Response, arguing that the Office of the Chief Coroner acted without jurisdiction under the Coroners Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that jurisdiction under the Coroners Act is a separate issue from whether the respondent breached the Human Rights Code, and lack of jurisdiction would not be a reason to disregard the Response.

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

The applicant and her representative failed to attend the scheduled hearing, having requested an accommodation to participate by telephone only three days prior.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical information to justify the late accommodation request or to establish an inability to attend in person.

As the applicant failed to appear and provide evidence, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement reached in a previous human rights application and civil action against the respondent college.

The applicant sought to amend the settlement to add compensation for legal fees and damages against a personal respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found it had no jurisdiction over the personal respondent, who had been previously dismissed from the matter.

The Tribunal further found that the respondent college had fulfilled all its obligations under the settlement agreement, including paying the agreed-upon sum.

As there was no evidence of a breach of the settlement or any link to a Code ground, the application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing appeal under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The applicant opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found that the WSIA appeal was confined to whether a subsequent medical condition should be compensated as an aggravation of the original injury, and there was no significant overlap of issues with the human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant, who is blind and relies on a guide dog, was asked to leave the respondent's grocery store because her dog was allegedly scaring customers.

The respondent failed to participate in the human rights proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached section 1 of the Human Rights Code by discriminating against the applicant on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to post a sign welcoming service animals.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with ongoing union grievance proceedings based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent proceedings where a grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The applicant's union, Construction Workers Local 53, requested to intervene in the proceeding, citing concerns that the application might engage provisions of the collective agreement relating to termination.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent objected, and noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of ethnic origin and record of offences, claiming she was pressured to resign and denied reinstatement after reporting alleged fraud by a store manager.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant misunderstood the definition of 'record of offences' and provided no evidence linking the respondent's actions to her ethnic origin.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the alleged sexual harassment occurred and concluded that the employer's investigation into the allegations was reasonable.

However, the Tribunal found that the employer breached section 8 of the Human Rights Code by including the applicant's 'baseless allegations of sexual harassment' as one of the reasons for terminating his employment.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $3,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and ancestry, and sexual harassment, claiming he was denied an employee discount on a single sandwich at a franchise location where he did not work.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant's evidence pointed to alleged favouritism by a manager toward her own employees rather than discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed.