Judith Keene

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

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant noting potential jurisdictional issues and requiring a response within 30 days, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and age brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of documents from the applicant.

The applicant had failed to provide witness lists, document lists, or respond to the respondent's request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately disclose documents related to his job search efforts, income, and mitigation of damages, noting that the standard for disclosure is arguable relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the landlord's refusal to permit wheelchair accessibility modifications.

The respondent landlords requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because of an ongoing eviction proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss as premature because the LTB had not yet issued its decision.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to defer, finding minimal evidence that the human rights issues were raised before the LTB and noting that the LTB hearing had already concluded, eliminating the risk of concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and requested to defer the application pending the resolution of a grievance.

The respondents and the applicant's union agreed to the deferral.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final extension to September 15, 2010, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, a claim for a $500,000 financial remedy, and to add the Toronto Police Association and two individuals as respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the reprisal allegation and financial remedy, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also added the Toronto Police Association as a respondent, but denied the request to add the two named individuals as there was no compelling reason to include them.

The applicant filed a human rights application two days after the expiry of the one-year limitation period, alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by clinical depression and legal advice from his civil lawyer.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be served on the respondents.

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

She subsequently informed the Tribunal that she did not wish to proceed but failed to file a formal Request to Withdraw despite multiple requests and a warning from the Registrar.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

Because the applicant had also filed union grievances regarding the same issues, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent and the union consented to the deferral but provided no substantive information about the status of the grievances or the accommodation process.

The Tribunal found the information insufficient to determine whether deferral was appropriate and directed the parties to provide further submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by an employee of a service station, identifying two personal respondents by their first names only.

The applicant requested an order directing the corporate respondent to provide contact information for the personal respondents.

The corporate respondent declined to provide the information without a Tribunal order, citing a retail agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the name and current address of the service station retailer to enable notification of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application against a named individual, arguing she was not a principal of the corporate respondent during the applicant's employment, and sought costs for her wrongful addition.

The applicant clarified that the individual's inclusion as a party was a clerical error and she was intended only as a contact person.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual as a respondent but denied the request for costs, noting it lacks jurisdiction to award costs under the Human Rights Code or the Tribunal's Rules.

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

The Notice of Application sent to the respondent was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current address for the respondent or reasons for believing the provided address was correct.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final opportunity to file a Response by August 18, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a prior 'no response decision'.

Applying the Tribunal's Rules and its decision in Kearns, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to advise whether she wished to submit additional documents or make oral submissions before the Tribunal issues a final remedial order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination by her church and related individuals, claiming she was shunned and forced to resign after reporting her husband's abuse and adultery.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to apparent delay and the naming of numerous respondents without specific allegations.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as the applicant alleged a series of incidents culminating in a denial of an internal appeal in 2009.

However, the Tribunal removed several individual respondents against whom no specific acts of discrimination were alleged.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race after being refused a hotel room.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, which included her Aboriginal ancestry and the hotel clerk's incorrect assumption that she was intoxicated, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the respondent's evidence.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the subject matter was also the subject of an ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who was hired at age 72, alleged that his employment was terminated due to age discrimination.

The respondent maintained that the termination was a layoff caused by an economic downturn and a significant reduction in the volume of metal frame work, which was the applicant's primary duty.

The Tribunal found that the respondent credibly established non-discriminatory reasons for the termination and rebutted the applicant's claim that he was replaced by a younger worker.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine its intentions regarding the application, but received no response.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.