Kaye Joachim

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination requested production of communications, medical evidence, and meeting minutes from the respondent union.

The union produced most documents but claimed solicitor-client privilege over notes taken in anticipation of litigation.

The applicant argued he had waived privilege, but the Tribunal held that the union, not the applicant, was the client.

The Tribunal denied the request for production, noting it cannot order disclosure of privileged documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that the corporate respondent's representative lived primarily in Bangladesh and the personal respondent was no longer with the company.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines, noting the respondents had known of the hearing date for several months.

In a transitional application under the Human Rights Code, the respondent requested that the hearing be extended to five days to accommodate an expert medical witness, given a pending preliminary issue regarding delay.

The Tribunal declined to extend the hearing dates, finding it fair and expeditious to bifurcate the hearing of liability from the issue of remedy.

The Tribunal directed that the respondent was not required to bring its expert witness to the first day of the hearing, though parties were required to bring their remaining witnesses.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, filed a human rights application after the respondent school board revoked a conditional offer of employment as a custodian following a physical assessment.

The union representing the school board's custodians sought to intervene, arguing it had an interest in the fitness standards applied to the position.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had a legitimate interest in the standard of fitness applied by the employer, even though the applicant was not a member of the bargaining unit.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that they had recently retained counsel who needed time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents had previously agreed to the hearing date and that late retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant in an age discrimination case filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of the names and details of union members who accepted early retirement under a negotiated agreement.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the program's terms were clear on their face and the requested documents would not assist in determining whether the program violated the Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because the respondents failed to provide a list of documents and witness statements in a timely manner.

The applicant's counsel, who is visually impaired, argued the information was needed promptly.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, and noted that an adjournment might unfairly benefit the non-compliant respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the required materials within two days and left the issue of admissibility and potential prejudice to the Member hearing the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant's union, CAW-Canada Local 200, filed a Request to Intervene, noting that its interests may be affected by the issues and remedies.

The applicant did not object, and the respondents did not file a response.

Applying the principle that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an employee's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

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

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed because it was not fully completed and delivered to the respondent before the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal held that the application was 'made' when sufficient material was filed with the Tribunal prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its Rules regarding the timing of delivery to the respondent, finding no prejudice to the respondent and noting that strict enforcement would prevent the applicant from pursuing her quasi-constitutional rights.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be processed together, directed the applicant to provide particulars regarding alleged conversations with supervisors, and bifurcated the hearing to address liability before remedy.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for the applicant's educational and employment records at this stage, finding them relevant only to remedy, but permitted the respondents to produce redacted resumes of successful candidates.

The Employer respondents requested an order removing personal respondents and restricting the subject matter of the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that some additions to the original complaint alleged new facts against new persons and struck those allegations, along with any allegations after the applicant's termination date.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal removed three personal respondents because the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for their actions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove three other personal respondents because the allegations involved personal harassment, making it potentially appropriate to award a remedy specifically against them.

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, that his section 53(3) transitional application be amended to add a financial remedy, and that it be joined with a newer section 34 application.

The Tribunal denied the recusal request, finding no basis for it.

The Tribunal also declined to join the applications because they were at different stages of the process, making joinder unfair and inexpeditious.

Finally, the Tribunal held that a formal amendment was not required to add a request for a financial remedy, as the Tribunal Rules allow remedies to be refined after filing.

The applicant filed a transitional application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently requested to amend the application to challenge a second hiring competition and add a new respondent.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting that transitional applications must relate to the subject matter of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal left it to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether evidence of the second competition could be admitted to support the claim regarding the first competition.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and union regarding severance pay.

The employer brought a request to dismiss the transitional applications, arguing they were filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate his intention to make an application, and exercised its discretion to relieve against the technical requirements of the Rules regarding delivery to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the applications against the employer and union be processed together.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference, alleging the applicant failed to produce clinical records, pre-employment medical documentation, and mitigation documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents had been in possession of most medical documents for months and should have filed a timely request for production rather than making a late adjournment request.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The respondent requested further particulars from the applicant and an adjournment of the hearing until the applicant complied.

The Tribunal found that the original complaint provided sufficient particulars for the respondent to understand the case it had to meet, noting that the respondent had already filed its Response, documents, and witness statements.

The Tribunal also noted the respondent's delay in raising its concerns.

The request for further particulars and an adjournment was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because of his disability.

His former employer, Royal Group Inc., brought a request to add Galanda Building Systems Inc. as a respondent, arguing that the termination resulted from Galanda's decision not to offer the applicant employment following an asset purchase.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the alleged facts could lead to a finding that Galanda breached the Code and that Galanda would not suffer prejudice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application because he had filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal alleging virtually identical facts and claiming damages for a breach of the Code.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant sought to amend his application to include additional allegations of discrimination but did not address the civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that an application that has been dismissed cannot be amended.

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 could not deal with the Application because the underlying complaint had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had closed the complaint file as withdrawn in 2005, meaning there was no continued complaint that could be abandoned to file the present Application.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the filing of materials and failed to confirm her attendance at a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct indicated an intention to abandon the application.

The application was dismissed.