Kathleen Martin

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The applicant had amended her civil Statement of Claim to remove any allegations of Code violations and requests for Code remedies, leaving only a claim for constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant was no longer seeking a Code remedy in the civil action, s. 34(11) did not bar the application.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting the imminent hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed one allegation regarding a supervisor calling the applicant a thief, finding no evidence linking the conduct to a protected ground.

The remaining allegations, which involved factual disputes regarding performance management and accommodation following a head injury, were allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, a retired professor and pension plan member, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of disability after the respondent pension plan refused his requests for extended time and a different location to inspect plan documents.

The applicant claimed that his back condition, diabetes, and surgical side effects required accommodation.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had disabilities within the meaning of the Code, he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was insufficient evidence that the one-day inspection policy or the location disadvantaged him.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations that the respondent breached the Code by requesting medical particulars or reprised against the applicant for filing a human rights complaint.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a migrant worker residing in Trinidad, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

He requested an order permitting him and a witness to testify by telephone, arguing he lacked status in Canada and could not attend the hearing in person.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to testify by telephone at this time, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant could not attend in person or via video conference.

However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to explore obtaining a visitor's visa or arranging compatible video conferencing from Trinidad.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend his human rights application to include a request for $25,000 in general damages, human rights training for the respondent, and the implementation of a human rights policy.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies sought and issued directions regarding the upcoming hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and had not contacted the Tribunal for several months.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications which were consolidated.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following his termination after a workplace injury.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts, seeking damages for breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application when a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding her employment and its termination.

The applicant had also commenced a Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, raised the issue of deferral.

The respondents filed submissions supporting deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action to avoid inconsistent decisions on facts and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and two individuals.

The individual respondents filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to be removed as parties, relying on the Persaud criteria.

The applicant consented to the requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests and removed the individuals as respondents, amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal overlooked important evidence regarding three specific job competitions and that he was denied natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case or raise new facts that could have been presented at the summary hearing, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and disability while incarcerated in a provincial correctional facility, filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application due to her precarious and worsening medical condition, including stage four terminal cancer.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's health issues constituted urgent circumstances that could affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age against her former employer, a nursing home, and two individual respondents who were owners/administrators.

After the corporate employer went into receivership, the applicant withdrew the application against the corporation and sought to proceed against the individuals.

The individual respondents argued the proceeding should be stayed against them as they acted as agents of the corporation.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found specific allegations against both individuals regarding the refusal to accommodate and an age-related comment.

The Tribunal ordered that the application continue against both individual respondents.

The applicant in a housing discrimination case requested an order permitting her doctor to testify by teleconference.

The respondent did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the doctor's evidence was not extensive, credibility was not a significant issue, and there was no conflicting evidence, subject to the applicant providing the doctor's clinical notes to the respondent.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding them liable for discrimination in employment, arguing they had not received notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that multiple notices, decisions, and case assessment directions had been successfully delivered to and signed for at the corporate respondent's address.

The Tribunal concluded that any failure by the individual respondent to become aware of the proceeding was due to the respondents' own inadequate internal procedures for handling mail, which did not constitute a valid ground for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement against the named respondents and an additional individual.

The Tribunal found that the additional individual was not a party to the original application, the Minutes of Settlement, or the Form 25.

Consequently, the Tribunal removed the individual as a respondent and directed the Registrar to schedule a conference call hearing to address the alleged contravention.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates based on medical reasons, providing a letter from a treating professional indicating she was unable to participate in legal proceedings for four months.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the applicant had systematically delayed the proceeding and failed to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the medical evidence constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay, but issued directions for future disclosure and scheduling to prevent indefinite delay.

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

A preliminary hearing conference call was scheduled to hear submissions on whether the remaining allegations should be dismissed.

The applicant was provided with proper notice of the hearing but failed to attend or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an internal workplace discrimination and harassment prevention policy investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not a legal proceeding that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact and law, and therefore deferral was not appropriate.