Kaye Joachim

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability (marijuana addiction).

Following his arrest on drug-related charges, the applicant resigned his employment and entered into a plea bargain.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily resigned to secure a plea bargain and was not under duress.

The Tribunal held that permitting the applicant to resile from his resignation and challenge his criminal conviction in a human rights proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

The applicant argued that the Vice-chair improperly limited the application against the union, refused to recuse herself, refused production requests, failed to consider relevant evidence, and relied on hearsay.

The Tribunal found that all arguments were addressed during the hearing and there was no basis to reconsider the rulings or final decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to the recent death of her mother and related medical issues.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, citing concerns about the future availability of two witnesses no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that the medical information constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment, but determined that a five-month delay was not required or fair to the respondents.

The adjournment was granted, with new dates to be scheduled potentially before the applicant's requested date of May 2010.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application because a parallel grievance arbitration based on the same facts and issues was scheduled to proceed.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that the overlapping factual matters and the advanced stage of the arbitration proceedings favoured deferral.

The applicants, former employees of the corporate respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability following a corporate downsizing and the provision of severance packages.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed case management issues.

The applicants withdrew their applications against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the proceedings to deal with liability separately from remedy, noting the significant preparation required for remedial claims, including actuarial evidence for pension losses.

Timelines for disclosure and witness statements were also established.

The respondents sought to dismiss a transitional human rights application, arguing it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had filed an incomplete application form prior to the deadline but failed to attach the original Commission complaint or deliver it to the respondents until September 2009.

The Tribunal held that an application is 'made' if sufficient material is filed by the deadline to indicate an intention to apply.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 4.3, the Tribunal relieved against the strict application of the filing rules, noting the respondents had been aware of the complaint since 2006.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending a parallel grievance arbitration concerning the same allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal noted that while it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance, the union had advised the applicant that the grievance had no prospect of success and adjourned it sine die.

Finding that the union did not intend to proceed with the grievance, the Tribunal concluded it would not be fair to defer the application and dismissed the deferral request.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline for transitional applications under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had filed the wrong form prior to the deadline, but subsequently filed the correct form after being notified by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of its Rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material before the deadline to indicate an intention to make a transitional application.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on the June 30, 2009 deadline, but delivered it to the respondents at 5:09 p.m. that day.

The respondents argued the application was barred because it was deemed received the next day, meaning it was not delivered prior to filing as required by the Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of the Rules, finding the application was 'made' within the statutory deadline.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and denied reconsideration.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that because the Commission had finally disposed of the complaint prior to the application, there was no continued complaint upon which the application could be founded.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's WSIB file and hospital records relating to his hand surgery.

The applicant alleged he was harassed and terminated after taking a leave of absence for a WSIB injury, while the respondents alleged he abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal found the requested records were arguably relevant to the applicant's capacity to work and ordered the applicant to request and produce them to the respondents.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code regarding the accommodation of her special education needs.

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

The Tribunal restricted the scope of the application to events between September 2006 and September 2007, denying the applicant's attempt to include pre- and post-complaint events.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to strike the respondents' late-filed responses and documents, finding no prejudice.

Case management directions were issued for the upcoming hearing.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to clarify the subject matter of the human rights application.

They argued that a letter submitted by the applicant expanded the scope of the original complaint with untimely allegations dating back to June 2006.

The Tribunal found that the original complaint clearly referenced earlier complaints of discrimination, and the supplementary letter merely provided further details of those earlier complaints.

The request was dismissed, and the Tribunal noted that the respondents' request for dismissal on the basis of no prima facie case and abuse of process could be raised at the hearing.

The parties made a joint request to use the applicant's initials in all public documents and decisions to comply with the publication ban under section 110(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that the applicant's name be substituted with initials and that no identifying information be provided to anyone other than the parties, their counsel, or Tribunal staff.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to add parties as respondents to the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under Rule 25.1, only final decisions may be reconsidered.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated because of a disability, sought production of various documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the applicant's own performance appraisals and related meeting minutes, finding them relevant.

However, the Tribunal denied the requests for CSI reports, sales records, and performance appraisals of other salespersons, as the respondents did not allege sales performance was the reason for termination.

A request for lease documentation was also denied for lack of explained relevance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to recent ill health that prevented her from meeting with counsel.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ill health constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, noting that neither party had yet complied with their pre-hearing filing obligations.

The adjournment was granted.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to remove personal respondents and clarify the subject matter of the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's supplementary affidavit merely provided further particulars and did not improperly expand the application.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one personal respondent who acted solely in the course of her employment, but declined to remove another personal respondent who was alleged to have personally threatened the applicant, as a specific finding of liability for reprisal could be made against him.

The applicant filed transitional applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding complaints previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued that one of the applications was barred because it was not properly filed by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of its Rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make the application.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the parties on whether the applications should be deferred or barred due to a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario near the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The respondents argued the application was barred because it was not properly delivered to all respondents, specifically the corporate respondent's contact person and a former employee, prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of its Rules regarding delivery, finding that sufficient material was filed with the Tribunal by the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application, and the respondents had notice of the complaint.

The Tribunal ruled the application was made prior to the statutory deadline.