Kaye Joachim

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The respondent argued the Tribunal could not deal with the Application because the underlying complaint had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had closed the complaint file as withdrawn in 2005, meaning there was no continued complaint that could be abandoned to file the present Application.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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal seeking damages for breach of the right to a workplace free of discrimination.

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 breach of the Code in court.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicative proceedings.

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

The respondents brought a request for an order dismissing the application on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, as the events occurred outside Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's employment took place exclusively in the eastern provinces, and the only connection to Ontario was that the alleged harassment occurred at a conference in Ontario and the organizational respondent had an Ontario address.

Applying the 'sufficient connection' test, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that the corporate respondent's general manager would be out of the province.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had specifically agreed to the hearing date and ought to have known the general manager would be required to attend.

The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant, who had moved to Nova Scotia, requested to participate in her upcoming human rights hearing by teleconference due to travel expenses and work commitments.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that in-person cross-examination was necessary because credibility was a central issue.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ordinary expectation is for parties to testify in person when serious credibility issues are involved, and the applicant's reasons of expense and inconvenience did not justify an exception.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add William Blair, Alok Mukherjee, and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as respondents to her human rights application alleging discriminatory police response.

The Tribunal denied the request to add Mukherjee and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as there were no allegations against them in the original complaint.

The Tribunal granted the request to add William Blair, Chief of Police, as he is jointly responsible with the Toronto Police Services Board for the discriminatory actions of police officers.

The Wahgoshig First Nation filed a Request to Intervene in two human rights applications concerning the termination of the applicants' services.

The respondent school board agreed to the intervention but objected to the intervenor expanding the scope of the applications to include broad systemic issues of discrimination against students.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene but ruled that the intervenor would not be permitted to expand the subject matter of the applications beyond the personal treatment of the applicants.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the respondent police services board and officers.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and breach of Charter and human rights arising from the same factual context.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement is ongoing.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that because the civil action did not specifically claim a Code infringement or seek a remedy under the Code, the application was not barred.

However, on the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a student's exceptionalities, the respondents sought an order to disclose parts of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The applicant's litigation guardian had withheld consent for the respondents to rely on the OSR.

The Tribunal reviewed the OSR and found that specific Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) documents were crucial to resolving the application.

The Tribunal ordered the litigation guardian to provide written consent for the disclosure of these documents, finding it would be an abuse of process to withhold them.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order requiring three non-parties to provide statements prior to the hearing to assist in preparing witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established the relevance of the evidence and that the requested procedure would not be fair or just.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a 'will say' statement indicating expected evidence and to summons the witnesses to attend the hearing.

The personal respondent, who resides in Saskatchewan and no longer works for the corporate respondent, requested to give his evidence at the upcoming Case Resolution Conference by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it fair, just, and expeditious, as his evidence was not anticipated to be pivotal to the issues in the Application.

The applicant filed a transitional application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondent to file a Response, which it failed to do.

The Tribunal was advised that one of the corporate respondents was in bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings against it.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the proper corporate respondents and directed the remaining corporate respondents to file a Response within 15 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, referencing a Commission file number.

The Tribunal found that no formal complaint had been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008, only an inquiry.

As a result, the transition application was dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer.

Her bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5001, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by a bargaining unit member alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal could not deal with the application because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and the subsequent request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that it may only accept a complaint that is continued at the time of the section 53 application.

Since the Commission had finally disposed of the complaint prior to the application, there was no continued complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by an internal investigation and grievance procedure.

The Tribunal held that an internal investigation is not a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1, and because the union did not pursue the grievance to arbitration, the grievance procedure did not appropriately deal with the substance.

The Tribunal removed all personal respondents except one, and directed a hearing on preliminary issues of delay and whether the union application disclosed a Code breach.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference, citing financial inability to travel from Newfoundland, medical appointments, and lack of time to prepare due to other matters.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had known of the hearing date since June 2009 and that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to add the Human Resources Manager as a personal respondent and to remove another personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the Human Resources Manager because the institutional respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions and the allegations were not likely to result in a personal order against her.

The respondents filed a Request for Orders During Proceeding seeking deferral, mediation, and particulars in a human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant declined mediation, there was no outstanding proceeding to justify deferral, and the request for particulars was moot as the applicant had recently filed detailed statements of facts and documents.