Kaye Joachim

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging new evidence, factual errors, and lack of notice.

The new evidence consisted of a 2012 medical report regarding second-hand smoke, which the adjudicator had previously refused to accept due to untimeliness.

The adjudicator found that the alleged factual errors regarding performance reviews and ranking lists did not alter the fundamental finding that disability played no role in the respondent's actions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Following the closure of a refinery, 18 former employees filed human rights applications alleging that the employer discriminated against them on the basis of age, disability, gender, and family status by failing to rehire them for other positions within the company.

The applicants relied primarily on statistical evidence and a management ranking list.

The Tribunal found that the statistical evidence did not support an inference of discrimination and that the ranking list was based on performance rather than discriminatory factors.

After reviewing the individual circumstances of each applicant, the Tribunal concluded that none had established a prima facie case of discrimination or provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that protected grounds played a role in the hiring decisions.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that the strict application of the collective agreement prevented him from achieving the rank of Captain in the Operations Division.

Due to a disability, the applicant had transferred to the Training Division in 2000.

Under the collective agreement, candidates for Captain in Operations required two years of recent service in Operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not forced to transfer out of Operations and ought to have reasonably known or inquired about his potential to remain in Operations indefinitely while being accommodated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the applications.

Following a finding that the respondent school board discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability and terminating her employment, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to a suitable alternative position, finding that the passage of time did not render the employment relationship unviable.

The respondent was also ordered to pay lost wages from June 2003 to the date of reinstatement, make pension and benefit adjustments, and pay $30,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

A motion by the respondent for the adjudicator to recuse herself for reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed.

The applicant, a former supervisor of asbestos removal, developed a mental disability (anxiety, depression, PTSD) due to the stress and potential personal liability associated with her position.

After a period of disability leave, she sought to return to work in an alternative position that did not carry the same level of health and safety liability.

The respondent school board failed to actively canvass available alternative positions, refused to meet with her vocational rehabilitation consultant, and ultimately terminated her employment upon receiving a medical report confirming she could not return to her pre-absence position.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to fulfill its duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant alleged a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent employer requested orders to dismiss allegations regarding two incidents for delay and to exclude proposed similar fact evidence from two witnesses.

The Tribunal struck the first incident as it occurred more than one year prior to the application and did not form part of a series, but allowed the second incident.

The Tribunal also excluded the proposed similar fact evidence, finding its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value given the temporal disconnect from the main allegations.

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

During the hearing, after presenting his evidence, the Tribunal questioned whether a prima facie case had been established.

The applicant conceded there was no reasonable prospect of success and requested to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to finally dispose of the matter.

The applicant, whose brother died while working as a migrant agricultural worker, brought a human rights application alleging that the Coroners Act discriminates by not mandating inquests for agricultural worker fatalities.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of data regarding participant fatalities and medical repatriations from third parties FARMS and HRSDC.

The Tribunal ordered the third parties to produce the requested data from 1978 to the present, noting that the respondent did not oppose the production and the third parties either did not oppose or cited privacy concerns that an order would resolve.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

He claimed he was unfairly demoted, paid less, denied promotions, and ultimately terminated.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was part of a legitimate corporate restructuring based on store seniority.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's discipline and termination were the result of repeated customer complaints regarding his customer service and his refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, rather than his race or reprisal for his human rights complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an African Canadian youth hockey player, alleged racial discrimination by his hockey club, including unequal playing time and being instructed to fight.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by a Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL) special committee.

The Tribunal found that the GTHL proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed the human rights application.

Both the applicant and the respondents filed requests for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision.

The respondents sought relief from paying prejudgment interest due to a one-year delay by the Tribunal in releasing the decision.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence regarding his efforts to mitigate damages.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the respondents had the benefit of the funds during the delay, and that the applicant's new evidence could reasonably have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant claimed there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated points made at the original hearing and failed to cite any conflicting jurisprudence, thereby failing to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The complainant, a City of Toronto employee, alleged that he experienced workplace harassment and discrimination based on his ancestry, ethnic origin, and perceived Muslim creed, and that the employer failed to investigate his complaints.

He also alleged reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and preferred the evidence of the respondents.

While one respondent admitted to using an isolated racial slur, the Tribunal found the employer's response—a verbal warning—was reasonable and did not constitute a Code violation.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's non-discriminatory explanations for the alleged reprisals and found the employer's investigation of the formal complaint was adequate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a driver, alleged his employment was terminated because a customer who complained about his performance had previously referred to him using a racial slur.

Although the applicant is not a person of colour, he argued he was perceived as such.

The Tribunal found that while the employer had legitimate performance concerns, it failed to investigate the customer's racial bias after being informed of the slur at the termination meeting.

This failure tainted the termination decision, resulting in a finding of discrimination based on perceived colour.

The applicant was awarded $5,324 for lost wages, but claims for reinstatement and injury to dignity were denied.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the removal of four personal respondents named in the underlying human rights complaint.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondents' actions as former Board Members and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the application against the individuals, the Tribunal ordered their removal from the style of cause.

The applicant, a child with multiple exceptionalities (learning disability and giftedness), alleged that the respondent school board failed to accommodate her special needs in grades 4 and 5.

She also alleged that a vice-principal engaged in sexual solicitation of her mother and created a poisoned environment when the mother rebuffed her.

The Tribunal found that the school board had generally implemented the required accommodations set out in the applicant's Individual Education Plan.

The Tribunal rejected the allegations of sexual solicitation and poisoned environment, preferring the evidence of the respondents over that of the applicant's mother.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a June 2010 decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant claimed she sent the request in November 2010, but the Tribunal had no record of it and it was not delivered to the respondents.

The Tribunal found the request was not made within the 30-day deadline and declined to exercise its discretion to permit a late request.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application over a year after the decision was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to permit the late filing and noting the applicant provided no basis for reconsideration.

The applicant's request to have the decision removed from the public record or anonymized was also denied.

The applicant delivered a summons to her former lawyer to compel him to attend the hearing.

The lawyer requested that the summons be quashed on the basis of improper service, lack of relevant evidence, and solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant did not respond to the request or indicate a waiver of privilege.

The Tribunal quashed the summons.

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent daycare discriminated against her on the basis of her association with a person with a disability (her brother).

The applicant claimed she was denied admission to the daycare because of her brother's behavioural issues and disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not offered a space because her father had erroneously recorded her birth year as 2002 instead of 2003, causing her to be passed over when the daycare prioritized younger children.

The applicant was ultimately removed from the waitlist due to negative interactions between her mother and daycare staff.

The application was dismissed.