Kaye Joachim

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.

The applicants filed Transitional Applications under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the underlying complaints had already been referred to the Tribunal by the Commission prior to the transition date.

As the applicants' counsel provided no submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, noting that matters already referred to the Tribunal cannot also be filed as transition applications.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1328 filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application brought by one of its members against the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The applicant and respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the intervention, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for transitional applications in respect of complaints filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission before June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal determined that although the applicant contacted the Commission in 2000, he never returned the complaint form and no complaint was ever filed.

As a result, the applicant could not file a transitional application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application based on the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the decision and failed to provide submissions meeting the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

He had previously filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages and alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal found that the factual situation in the application was the same as in the civil action, and the applicant was effectively seeking damages for a Code breach in court.

Consequently, the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application based on the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the decision and failed to provide submissions responsive to the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging gender bias in the criminal justice system, specifically challenging the actions of police, Crown Attorneys, and the Ministry's domestic violence policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds.

It held that police actions are not attributable to the Ministry, and the actions of Crown Attorneys in prosecuting the applicant are protected by prosecutorial immunity.

Furthermore, the applicant lacked standing to challenge the Ministry's domestic violence policies because, absent a reviewable application of the policy to him, there was no service relationship, and the Code requires an applicant to establish that their own rights were infringed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in the termination of his employment and the respondent's failure to hire him for other positions.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on the applicant's requests for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of a list of salaried employees who received termination notices at the Burlington plant and the position description of a supervisor of sales hired shortly before the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal denied requests for internal job postings, employee lists from the Hamilton location, and information regarding older employees, finding them not arguably relevant at this stage.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging systemic discrimination against non-Aboriginal Canadians by the respondents during the Caledonia protests.

The applicants had also filed a civil action for wrongful arrest and defamation arising from the same events.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the applications pending the outcome of the civil action.

Finding a significant factual overlap and a serious concern for potential conflicting findings of fact, the Tribunal ordered the applications deferred until the completion of the civil action.

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse herself from further participation in the application based on various interim decisions she had written, including adding the Landlord and Tenant Board as a party and hearing a request for early dismissal.

The adjudicator found that these rulings did not give rise to any basis for recusal and dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment at a racetrack.

The respondents argued the application should be barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or deferred because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for injuries sustained in a subsequent accident at the track.

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

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, finding that while there might be some evidentiary overlap, the issues in the two proceedings were distinct.

The applicant filed a human rights application against several corporate respondents and an individual.

One corporate respondent was in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

Two other corporate respondents failed to file a response as previously directed.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to apply to lift the bankruptcy stay, and whether she wished to proceed orally or in writing against the non-responding corporate respondents.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be barred or deferred because the applicant had commenced civil actions against them based on essentially the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the application was not barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil actions did not allege discrimination or seek a remedy under the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the civil actions had just commenced while the human rights hearing was scheduled to begin shortly.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to restrict the remedies sought by the applicant, or alternatively, seeking further particulars and production relating to the requested remedies.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to set out the basis for her claim of $20,000 in special damages, including details of mitigation efforts and subsequent employment, and to produce related documents.

The request for bifurcation was deferred to the hearing member.

The parties brought requests for orders during proceedings in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding, finding no compelling reason to continue against them as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal declined to strike the sexual harassment allegations for delay, finding they were timely or filed in good faith pending an internal investigation.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for particulars but ordered the respondents to produce investigator notes and recommendations to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on family status and disability.

The institutional respondent and one personal respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings against them under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The remaining personal respondent requested that the Tribunal refuse to proceed against him until the applicant had the stays lifted.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the BIA stays only apply to the bankrupts, and directed the parties to advise if they intend to seek to lift the stays.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination regarding changes to a post-retirement benefits policy.

In his statement of additional facts, the applicant relied on events that occurred after the original complaint was filed.

The Tribunal ruled that under the transitional provisions, the subject matter of the application must relate to the original complaint, and therefore post-complaint events cannot form part of the present application.

The applicant was advised he could file a fresh application under section 34(1) for the subsequent events.

The applicant's mother filed human rights applications on behalf of her adult son, who has severe developmental disabilities, alleging discrimination by his care home and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the mother's standing to act as litigation guardian.

The Tribunal found that because the PGT had been appointed full guardian of the person by a court order, only the PGT could act as the applicant's litigation guardian for these applications.

The Tribunal directed the PGT to advise how it wished to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the respondents a 30-day extension to file a response, which they failed to do.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation.

The respondents were granted 14 days to file their responses along with an explanation for the delay.