Judith Keene

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities against the respondent bank.

The respondent submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it is a federally regulated body.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that banking falls within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent confirmed the grievance was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce the Human Rights Code.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Union and the Union requested to continue as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also addressed outstanding disclosure issues, noting the corporate respondent's failure to comply with previous disclosure orders, and ordered the respondent to provide contact information for two proposed witnesses.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove six individual respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions and that the applicant would not be prejudiced.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide evidence that her newly retained representatives were either licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada or exempt from licensing requirements.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents.

The corporate respondent had failed to comply with disclosure rules and demanded the applicant's counsel visit its office to review documents and pay for copies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the corporate respondent to immediately provide a list of relevant documents and produce them by a specified date, or formally claim privilege.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing that allegations predating November 12, 2009 were untimely, lacked particularity, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, bringing them within the time limit.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations for lack of a prima facie case but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding job competitions between 1992 and 2006.

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

During the proceedings, the applicant requested to amend the application to add a claim of reprisal, alleging that his former supervisor made retaliatory comments to co-workers after the application was filed.

The respondent requested to remove the former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's request to amend, finding that the alleged comments could constitute reprisal and there was no unfairness in the timing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions and her continued presence as a party was not necessary.

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing disclosure and procedural issues ahead of the next hearing date.

The applicant, who had already closed her case, sought to call a new witness and requested production of the respondent's billing records and certain email correspondence.

The Tribunal denied the requests to call the witness and produce the billing records, noting the applicant had already presented her evidence and the billing records lacked relevance.

The Tribunal also declined to order production of the emails, as the applicant had not properly requested them.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to record the remainder of the hearing, subject to conditions.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal but requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application to ensure finality.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without terms, noting that if the applicant were to file a new application based on the same subject matter, the respondents could object at that time.

The applicant, a female general labourer, alleged she was terminated from her employment after two days because of her sex.

The respondents claimed she quit by failing to show up for work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was fired and that her sex was a factor in the termination, specifically noting the personal respondent's unhappiness with a female labourer using the office washroom.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay $6,390 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to post a Human Rights Code card in their workplace.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal permitted the self-represented applicant to call additional medical witnesses provided she filed witness statements by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose relevant medical and psychological records to the personal respondent, finding that her claims for psychological harm and special damages made the records relevant, outweighing her privacy interests.

Confidentiality conditions were imposed on the disclosure.

Finally, the applicant was ordered to provide particulars regarding her claims for out-of-pocket expenses and other allegations.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several disclosure issues.

The Union was directed to file revised witness statements summarizing expected evidence in compliance with Rule 17.

The applicant, who adopted her application as her witness statement, was directed to provide a precise list of documents she intends to rely upon and to disclose arguably relevant documents, including medical records, to both respondents, or alternatively file a Request for an Order if claiming privilege.

The applicant filed a request for the Tribunal to reconvene to assess additional remedies, alleging that the respondent had willfully breached a previous Tribunal order.

Before the matter was heard, the applicant's counsel informed the Tribunal that the applicant had moved from the respondent's premises and no longer wished to pursue the request.

The Tribunal considered the request withdrawn and closed the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of three ongoing grievances concerning the same subject matter.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the lack of information regarding the progress or hearing dates of the grievances, making duplication of proceedings unlikely at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had the requisite interest in the application.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they had breached the Human Rights Code.

The respondents had failed to participate in the original proceedings, claiming they feared the impact on pending criminal charges against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts were presented and the respondents failed to provide an adequate explanation for their failure to participate or request a deferral.

The Tribunal held that the respondents' inaction did not outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and sought placement in a bargaining unit position as a remedy.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2189, requested to intervene to contest the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order such a remedy, as the applicant was not a union member.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications involving bargaining unit positions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that there was substantial overlap between the facts relevant to the application and those in the criminal charges.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the criminal proceeding is completed.

The respondent school board requested an order requiring the applicant to provide details of further allegations raised in an email during the proceedings, and to dismiss those allegations for delay if they related to the 2003-2005 school years.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's Next Friend to provide a detailed statement of the allegations and an explanation for the delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, failing which the new allegations would not be considered.

The applicant requested that the abeyance of one application be lifted and indicated he did not wish to proceed with a second application.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response to the first application and dismissed the second application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The applicant argued the College should be held vicariously liable for the actions of a social worker who conducted a custody and access assessment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, as the social worker was not an employee of the College and was not named as a respondent in the original application.