Kaye Joachim

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

In a second Request for Order during Proceedings, a request was made to add two individuals as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request for the reasons set out in a previous interim decision, while confirming that the original complaint included an allegation of reprisal.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that the respondent School Board provide contact information for 17 potential witnesses, primarily students, parents, and teachers.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the School Board to provide the last known contact information for the identified individuals or provide an explanation as to why the information could not be produced.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the transitional application, arguing it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had emailed the application on June 26, 2009, but submitted a revised version on June 30, 2009, after 5:00 p.m.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its procedural rules regarding delivery and filing, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, having previously commenced a civil action against the respondents arising from the same factual context.

The Tribunal held that the application was not barred by s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents in a human rights application brought a preliminary request to remove the personal respondent from the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that preliminary motions are discouraged in transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which are designed to be highly expeditious.

The Tribunal directed that the request be dealt with by the adjudicator at the start of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add the president of the respondent union as a personal respondent and requested further particulars from the union.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the president, finding his actions bound the union and personal liability was unlikely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request for particulars as premature, noting that the Tribunal Rules provide for statements of additional facts if mediation is unsuccessful.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of colour, race, ethnic origin, place of origin, and disability.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance alleging breaches of the collective agreement and termination without just cause, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the arbitration.

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

The respondents requested an order to combine the present human rights application with another application filed by the personal respondent against the applicant's son for alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent in the other application is not involved in the present one, the alleged reprisal is unrelated to the current allegations, and combining them would delay the processing of the current application, which is scheduled for a Case Resolution Conference later in the month.

The applicant, a transgender woman, sought to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination by a women's-only fitness facility.

The respondents requested costs or a monetary award for abuse of process, citing the stigma and expense of defending the claim.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the request for costs, finding it lacked statutory authority to award costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted the requisite rules.

The Tribunal also found no abuse of process by the applicant.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because she would be out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had known of the hearing date for months and failed to provide exceptional circumstances or a timely explanation for the delay in requesting the adjournment.

The applicant sought to add an individual human resources manager as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not set out any allegations that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent personally breached the applicant's rights under the Code, and noting that his actions bind the corporate respondent in any event.

The Tribunal also directed that a half-day hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the respondents' preliminary issues regarding timeliness and whether the facts alleged could give rise to a finding of discrimination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a parallel grievance arbitration concerning the same administrative transfer.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that the overlapping factual matters and the stage of the arbitration proceedings favoured deferral.

The application was deferred and the scheduled Case Resolution Conference was cancelled.

The applicant, a minor, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the respondent hockey association.

Because the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, the applicant asserted that this restriction violates section 15(1) of the Charter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to serve a Notice of Constitutional Question on the Attorney General of Ontario, as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code relating to his dismissal from employment and a subsequent grievance settlement.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications proceed together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, rejecting the applicant's argument that doing so would breach solicitor-client privilege with the union's counsel.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file submissions on the preliminary issues of full and final settlement and timeliness raised by the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application on the basis that the matters complained of fell within the adjudicative function of the respondent and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the decision was inconsistent with established jurisprudence on the interpretation of 'services' under the Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's disagreement with the adjudicator's legal analysis did not constitute a valid basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed an application alleging his forced resignation constituted discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to refine his document production requests to those required for the preliminary issues of abuse of process, jurisdiction, and duress.

The applicant submitted a list of requested documents.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding it inadequate because the applicant failed to explain how the requested documents were relevant to the issue of duress allegedly experienced on the date of his resignation.

The applicant, who required dialysis for a kidney condition, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing shift changes and ultimately terminating his employment.

He also alleged the union failed to properly represent him.

The applicant withdrew the application against the union during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding insufficient evidence that shift changes were refused for disability-related reasons.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was based on a series of bona fide misconduct incidents and was not a pretext for disability discrimination.

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

The respondents argued the applications were barred because they were not properly filed and served by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive strict application of its Rules, finding that the applications were made prior to the deadline because the applicant had filed sufficient material with the Tribunal and delivered most of the material to the respondents in May 2009.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for orders regarding deemed acceptance, premature production, and adding new respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his employer and union regarding a failure to accommodate his disability.

After settling with the employer, the union requested early dismissal of the application against it, arguing the remedies sought were moot.

The Tribunal also noted an issue regarding whether the union's mere failure to pursue a grievance could constitute discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day Case Resolution conference to hear these preliminary issues.

The applicant, a Black mail delivery person, was previously found to have been racially discriminated against by a Toronto police officer who stopped and questioned him without cause.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal determined that the Toronto Police Services Board is jointly liable with the Chief of Police for the discriminatory actions of the officer under the Human Rights Code, despite the Board's argument that it only serves a policy function.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 in monetary compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.