Kaye Joachim

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response despite being notified by the Tribunal of the consequences.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their right to participate.

A half-day hearing was scheduled to determine the final ruling based on the uncontradicted evidence.

The respondents requested to strike parts of a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the awarding of training contracts.

The Tribunal found that a prior settlement and release barred the applicant from pursuing claims related to a 2002 contract renewal.

Furthermore, the Tribunal struck the reprisal allegation because the applicant's prior civil action did not raise human rights issues, meaning the alleged reprisal was not for enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The remainder of the application was permitted to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed human rights applications against Kelly Services, IBM Canada Limited, and a personal respondent, alleging his employment assignment was terminated due to disability.

The Tribunal considered a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent was an employee of Kelly Services acting in the course of his employment, and Kelly Services was vicariously liable for his actions.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent from both applications.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested a stay of the Tribunal's decisions finding liability for racial discrimination, pending an application for judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Tribunal noted that its decisions in transitional applications do not have precedential value, mitigating the respondent's concerns about impact on other pending applications.

The applicants filed transitional human rights applications alleging sex discrimination, family status discrimination, and reprisal regarding a youth hockey dressing room policy that denied female players access to the boys' change room.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders.

The Tribunal bifurcated the hearing into liability and remedy phases, declined to dismiss the applications for delay or lack of jurisdiction, refused to strike the requests for remedial relief, and denied the respondents' request to add Hockey Canada as a party to avoid delaying the hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and her union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed a valid settlement agreement releasing the employer from all human rights claims up to the date of the agreement, and rejected her claim that she signed under duress or misunderstanding.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding that the allegations related to the duty of fair representation, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his union and several individuals.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed a request to clarify the scope of the application and remove three personal respondents.

The Tribunal held that allegations predating the original complaint could not be added under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one personal respondent whose actions were purely administrative, but declined to remove two others who were alleged to have engaged in direct discriminatory conduct and reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race and ethnic origin, stemming from a racial slur and the subsequent cancellation of his emissions testing accreditation.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents seeking damages based on the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent school board brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with during a prior grievance process.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance regarding her termination but later withdrew it without prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the unilateral withdrawal of the grievance by the union did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The request to dismiss was denied and the matter was referred to mediation.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on June 20, 2009.

One of the respondents requested the application be dismissed, alleging they did not receive the application materials by the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal held that an application is 'made' when sufficient material is filed with the Tribunal, and exercised its discretion to waive the technical requirement of delivering the application to the respondent prior to filing.

The respondent was directed to file a response.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by an assessment centre and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications be processed together due to similar and related facts, despite the applicant's opposition.

The Tribunal also noted that the assessment centre had not filed a response and gave it 21 days to do so or face consequences under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after taking a medical leave.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full release upon termination.

The applicant brought a request for production of documents relating to the merits of her underlying claim for the upcoming preliminary hearing on the release.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that documents relating to the merits of the discrimination claim were not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of whether the signed release barred the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to her inability to prepare caused by high anxiety and tiredness.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's ill health constituted an exceptional circumstance under its scheduling guidelines.

However, the Tribunal ordered that any future adjournment requests by the applicant must be supported by medical confirmation.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences regarding his treatment at the Toronto Jail.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the respondent Ministry seeking damages for negligence and Charter breaches based on the same factual allegations of failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal held that the applications were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant was effectively claiming the equivalent of damages under section 46.1 of the Code in his civil action.

The applications were dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability during an arrest by police and subsequent transfer to a hospital.

The applicant opposed processing the applications together.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar and related facts and legal issues, and ordered that they be processed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was filed more than one year after the alleged discrimination.

The applicant claimed he had contacted the Ontario Human Rights Commission earlier and was told his complaint would be held in abeyance pending a grievance procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the Commission to provide documents and information regarding the applicant's prior inquiries to assist in determining the limitation period issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated after she complained of sexual harassment.

In a prior interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the notes of the investigator who conducted the internal investigation.

The respondent objected, arguing it had no opportunity to respond to the request.

Upon reviewing additional submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the investigator's personal notes were not arguably relevant at this stage, as the 70-page investigation report provided the respondent's position on how the allegations were handled.

The prior production order regarding the notes was revoked.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on marital status, while also pursuing a civil action for improper termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or defer it pending the civil action.

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the civil action did not seek a Code remedy.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings on similar facts and issues.

A request to amend the application was deemed unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the institutional and personal respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response despite a previous interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the institutional respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate.

The applicant was given 30 days to locate the personal respondents, failing which they would be removed from the proceedings.

A half-day hearing was scheduled to determine the final outcome.

The applicants, four employees of the corporate respondent, filed transitional applications alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability, specifically regarding requirements for medical documentation.

The Tribunal directed that the applications be processed together due to similar issues.

The respondents objected, arguing the circumstances of each employment differed.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, finding that processing the applications together would ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, as the allegations involved a pattern of discrimination and potentially identical attendance management practices.

The Tribunal also requested submissions on whether the personal respondents should be removed.