Kaye Joachim

The applicant, a tenant in subsidized housing, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after her request for an expedited transfer from a one-bedroom to a two-bedroom apartment upon the birth of her child was not prioritized.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's occupancy standards, which deemed a one-bedroom apartment appropriate for a single parent with one child, were not discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has epilepsy and uses a service dog, alleged discrimination in the provision of services when a restaurant manager refused to allow her service dog at the buffet table.

The manager questioned her need for the dog since she was not visually impaired.

The Tribunal found that the refusal amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $500 in compensation for injury to dignity and to develop a written policy on accommodating persons with disabilities.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant asserted she was too ill to travel and submitted a medical note.

The Tribunal found the medical note did not state she was unable to travel or explain why she failed to advise the Tribunal of her illness.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The Board had previously found that the applicant was terminated for misconduct (harassment).

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not challenge the misconduct finding, but allowed the allegations of racial and sexual orientation discrimination to proceed.

The applicant's request to add parties was dismissed, and case management directions were issued regarding the filing of documents.

The respondents in a human rights application brought a Request for an Order to dismiss the application for delay and to clarify its scope.

The Tribunal found that the initial allegations formed a pattern of ongoing discrimination and were not out of time under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal struck the applicant's newly raised ground of sex discrimination due to an unexplained four-year delay.

The Tribunal allowed post-complaint allegations that were a continuation of the original dispute but struck allegations relating solely to a separate dispute with an insurance company.

The Tribunal also ordered the hearing to be bifurcated to address liability first.

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the corporate respondent arising from the same factual context, seeking damages for breach of employment contract.

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

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an order to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by a decision under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The applicant had previously claimed constructive dismissal under the ESA, which was denied.

The Tribunal found that the ESA decision did not address the applicant's allegation of mistreatment based on sexual orientation, as it was outside the employment standards officer's mandate.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as out of time and for failing to establish a prima facie case, and alternatively sought further particulars.

The Tribunal found the complaint regarding the unsuitability of the applicant's accommodated position was an ongoing matter and therefore timely.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had potentially made out a prima facie case, but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars detailing how the position was unsuitable given he had performed it for three and a half years.

The applicant, a Black woman enrolled in an esthetics program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour because the make-up kit provided by the respondent college did not contain products for darker skin tones.

She further alleged that she was expelled for complaining about the kit.

The Tribunal found that while the kit lacked products for all skin tones, this did not amount to discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant was expelled due to her ongoing negative behaviour and attitude, not because of her complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a transitional human rights application on the basis that it was filed by the applicant's father, who lacked authorization to act on behalf of his adult son.

The Tribunal waived the strict application of its rules regarding the filing of the transition form but ordered the applicant to confirm in writing within ten days whether he wished to pursue the application and to designate a representative if desired.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights applications, which originally alleged that the collective agreement prevented him from applying for promotion due to his disability, to include post-complaint allegations regarding the respondents' refusal to recognize his diploma program.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would alter the subject matter of the original complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, contrary to the transitional provisions of the Code.

The applicant, a patternmaker, alleged that her employment was terminated due to her disability (sensitivity to chemical solvents) and that the corporate respondent failed to accommodate her by not providing a chemical-free work environment.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the applicant was permitted to work in the office away from the factory floor, and that the sole reason for her termination was the downsizing of the operation and its relocation to Bangladesh.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of place of origin (Russia) when it denied her admission to its Faculty of Law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rejection was based on bona fide concerns about her ability to complete the program, specifically her extremely low LSAT score and poor academic record in a university-level course.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant failed to prove that her place of origin was a factor in the admissions decision.

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

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal in which he specifically claimed damages for discriminatory treatment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement arising out of the same factual context.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously submitted a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but it was closed as 'withdrawn' at her request before being formally filed or served.

Consequently, the complaint was not 'filed' within the meaning of section 53(1), and the application under section 53(5) was dismissed, without prejudice to her right to file a new application under section 34.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a complaint originally filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondent union argued the application was not made against it before the statutory deadline because the applicant named the international union instead of the local union.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to relieve against the technical requirements of the Rules, finding the local union ought to have known it was the intended party.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written explanations for the delay in raising 1999 allegations and how certain allegations engage the Code.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove three personal respondents from the human rights complaint.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the application against the personal respondents, as they were acting in the course of their employment and there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to provide a remedy.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed from the style of cause.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference via email without providing any reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had known of the hearing date for months and failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required by the Tribunal's scheduling policies to grant a late adjournment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his transitional application.

He argued his submissions were not considered and the Tribunal failed to communicate with him in French.

The Tribunal found that while his submissions were mistakenly sent to the Chief Commissioner and not considered initially, reviewing them now provided no basis to alter the decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant initially filed in English, and the failure to communicate in French prior to his request was not a basis for reconsideration.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the refusal to permit him to record classes as an accommodation.

He brought a request for an order during proceedings to add six new respondents and for document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to add respondents because the applicant did not indicate how they participated in the discrimination and they were not named in the original complaint.

The request for production was denied as premature because no hearing date had been set.