Kaye Joachim

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and unprovoked physical assault by police.

He subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for assault, battery, and Charter violations, but not for Code infringements.

The Tribunal held that the application was not barred by s. 34(11) of the 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 inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested an order to strike portions of the applicant's pleadings and for further particulars in a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal struck all allegations relating to events prior to July 2005 and after March 2006, as they were outside the scope of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the remaining allegations within 10 days.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that her civil action only raised disability-related claims, while her human rights application included race-based discrimination claims not raised in the civil action.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, holding that section 34(11) applies even if different grounds of discrimination are raised in the two proceedings, to prevent duplication.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that section 43(2) required oral submissions, as the statutory bar deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code, which allow for applications in respect of complaints filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal sought submissions after being advised by the Commission that no such complaint was ever filed.

The applicant conceded there was no record of filing a complaint prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the transitional application, noting this does not affect the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant, an injured worker receiving WSIB benefits, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability and colour in providing vocational rehabilitation services.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' recommendations to terminate the applicant's Labour Market Re-entry plan and deny vacation were justified by his poor attendance, which was not shown to be related to his disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination based on colour or in the respondents' communications with the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code, attempting to abandon a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and no timely request for reconsideration was filed.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the complaint was not 'continued' at the Commission on the day the applicant attempted to abandon it.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging workplace reprisal, the respondents requested the exclusion of the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism.

The Tribunal applied the Mohan criteria and excluded the expert evidence, finding that testimony regarding the reluctance of racialized persons to complain and the history of police-minority relations was irrelevant to the reprisal complaint.

Furthermore, evidence regarding police culture and the treatment of complainants was deemed to be within the Tribunal's own expertise and therefore unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

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

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the civil action did not seek a remedy for a Code infringement.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer.

Her union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2936-09, filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The applicant objected to the intervention, while the respondent employer supported it.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee alleging discrimination in employment, and absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervention status.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response or comply with a previous Tribunal direction to provide contact information for certain individuals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate, directing them to file their Responses within 14 days with an explanation for the delay, and ordering the institutional respondent to provide the requested contact information.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add two individuals as respondents to her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations against the proposed respondents related to the termination of her employment, which post-dated the original complaint and did not form part of the subject matter of the current application.

The applicant was directed to file a separate request if she wished to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant's union, United Steelworkers, Local 3789, filed a Request to Intervene.

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

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the respondent employer.

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene.

As the union is the bargaining agent for the applicant and has an interest in applications alleging discrimination in employment, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Union respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because two of their witnesses were unavailable due to a previously scheduled union conference.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondents had known about the hearing dates for months and that a scheduling conflict with a work conference did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a scheduled one-day hearing to reschedule it for five days over two weeks, citing the estimated length of the hearing and the location of witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Information Bulletin requires exceptional circumstances for adjournments, which were not present.

The Tribunal directed the parties to attend the scheduled hearing date with sufficient witnesses for one full day, after which additional days would be scheduled if necessary.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that her application for a Legal Aid certificate was pending and she needed more time to prepare as an unrepresented party.

The respondents objected.

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 justifying an adjournment.

The respondents asserted that the parties signed Minutes of Settlement and a release, which were filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission but not approved.

The Commission held the only signed copy and required a Tribunal direction to release them.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide a copy of the signed Minutes of Settlement and Release to the Tribunal and the parties.

The applicant requested to participate in her upcoming human rights hearing by teleconference because she had relocated to British Columbia after agreeing to the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the case involved several witnesses and required an assessment of credibility, making a teleconference inappropriate.

The applicant was directed to confirm her in-person attendance or risk having the application deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and termination of employment.

He had previously filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on virtually identical facts, alleging breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement has been commenced.

The application was dismissed as barred by section 34(11).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and its employees on the basis of disability and creed in the handling of his Labour Market Re-entry program and benefits.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the actions complained of, including the denial of accommodation and bereavement leave, fell within the WSIB's adjudicative functions.

As purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.