Judith Keene

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a final decision dismissing his human rights application against his former employer.

He argued that the adjudicator failed to exclude witnesses during the hearing, which he claimed conflicted with established Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that there is no absolute rule requiring the exclusion of witnesses and that the applicant suffered no prejudice, as the witnesses' testimonies were credible, corroborated by documentary evidence, and pertained to issues that were largely uncontested or irrelevant to a Code breach.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to proceed with his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the resolution of a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The applicant indicated that the grievance had been withdrawn prior to a hearing on its merits.

As the respondent made no submissions, the Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the parties to respond to outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The individual respondent filed a Response objecting to the Tribunal's delay in sending the Application and requested dismissal, but did not otherwise respond.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing both respondents to file a Response by May 31, 2011, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to proceed with his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

The applicant provided a probation order indicating the criminal trial had concluded with a conviction.

The respondent did not make any submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the Registrar to schedule mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Family Responsibility Office discriminated against him on the basis of sex by enforcing child support arrears against him more strictly than against his former spouse.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints largely related to court orders and evidence given in court proceedings, which are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Regarding the enforcement of arrears, the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's actions to his sex, offering only a bald allegation.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal within one year if the stay is lifted, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent College discriminated against him on the basis of sex and marital status when its Complaints Committee dismissed his professional misconduct complaint against a social worker.

The underlying complaint related to a custody and access assessment conducted by the social worker during family law proceedings.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided only bald allegations of bias and discrimination with no evidence connecting the Committee's decision to a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent municipality's accessibility advisory committee.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the committee's composition and duties for lack of jurisdiction, finding they lacked a sufficient connection to the applicant's own rights under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the municipality failed to accommodate the applicant's disability by denying his request for a summer student to assist with his volunteer activities to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged that the respondent, an employee, discriminated against him by falsely accusing him of racism.

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

The Tribunal found that an accusation of racism, even if false, does not in and of itself constitute discrimination under the Code, noting that section 8 protects individuals asserting their human rights from reprisal.

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

The applicant, a temporary employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and age.

He claimed he was denied training opportunities, subjected to uninvestigated harassment by a co-worker, forced to work near a urine spill, and discriminatorily laid off and not rehired.

The Tribunal found that training opportunities were based on skills and requests, not discriminatory factors.

The respondent adequately investigated the harassment complaint, concluding both employees behaved unprofessionally.

The urine spill incident lacked any connection to Code grounds.

Finally, the layoff was due to a seasonal shortage of work, and the failure to rehire was based on the applicant's performance and interpersonal conflicts.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Prior to the hearing, the respondents requested an adjournment and clarification regarding the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request but varied the hearing procedure to accommodate the applicant's disabilities and lack of representation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately produce the requested memo books and directed that the scheduled hearing date would proceed only to hear the applicant's evidence, with the respondents permitted to postpone cross-examination if necessary.

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene in the application, specifically regarding the quality of representation services it provided to the applicant.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by a represented employee.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application to add an allegation of reprisal and a request for wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the reprisal allegation flowed from the original facts, the wage loss claim had a logical connection to the original allegations, and the respondents would not be prejudiced by the amendment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because it appeared a grievance had been filed dealing with the same subject matter.

The parties confirmed that the grievance procedure had been exhausted.

The Tribunal determined there was no proceeding to defer to and directed the respondents to file their Response.

The applicant's request for production of documents from a non-party union was dismissed as premature.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being issued a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision directing it to do so.

The Tribunal found that the respondent received notice but chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit any additional materials or request an oral teleconference before a final determination.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and interim decisions, leading the Tribunal to deem them to have waived their right to participate.

A lawyer subsequently contacted the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents, requesting to file a late Response and proceed in the ordinary course.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their Response, provide a detailed explanation for their previous failure to respond, and propose an expedited timeline for resolving the application before determining whether they would be permitted to participate further.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after the respondent refused to hold a coroner's inquest into her mother's death.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that an inquest is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and that the application was an abuse of process.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add the ground of disability, based on an email disclosed in another proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that a coroner's inquest is a service and that there was no abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to include disability discrimination.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Subsequently, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and the respondent providing notice of her intent to abandon the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two applications under the Human Rights Code against the respondents, alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability, as well as reprisal.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that the two applications be heard together pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Registrar was directed to schedule a hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to proceed with her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant sought to proceed because the arbitration hearing was delayed until March 31, 2011.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the arbitration was only three months away, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to reapply if there were further adjournments or other compelling reasons.