Kaye Joachim

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application—whether the respondent could have accommodated the applicant's permanent medical restrictions in 2003—had been appropriately dealt with in WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the WSIAT decision relied upon by the respondent only determined the re-employment obligation and did not address the accommodation issue.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to add the respondents' legal counsel as parties to the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision because it did not dispose of the central issues in the complaint or deprive the applicant of a remedy against the respondents.

As such, it could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because a personal respondent and key witness was out of the country due to a family illness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances, did not adequately explain their steps to locate the witness, and delayed in making the request.

The Tribunal noted that the witness's presence might not be required on the first day of the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Case Direction Assessment that directed a respondent witness to testify by telephone.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that Rule 25.1 only permits reconsideration of a final decision, and the direction regarding witness testimony was interlocutory.

The applicant was advised they could raise their concerns about the witness's telephone participation at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and accent after being transferred at the request of the LCBO.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a party but added the applicant's employer, G4S, as a respondent.

The Tribunal also dismissed the LCBO's requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and as an abuse of process, finding that the broad interpretation of employment could encompass the relationship between the applicant and the LCBO.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police.

He had previously commenced a civil action seeking damages for racial profiling and Charter violations arising from the same incident.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for a Code infringement based on the same factual context, even if section 46.1 is not expressly pleaded.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to add another personal respondent and a new allegation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that transitional applications must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint filed with the Commission, and that permitting the amendment would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal on the basis of sex.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests to amend the application and to add the parent corporation of her employers as a respondent.

The Tribunal found that the additional allegations were already properly before it and did not require formal amendment.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion to add the parent corporation as a respondent, noting that the application set out facts that could give rise to a finding of liability against it and that no prejudice was asserted.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, claiming his resignation and plea bargain were forced.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application for abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested production of documents.

The Tribunal deferred the motion to dismiss, directing that a Case Resolution Conference be scheduled to hear evidence on whether the applicant signed the resignation and plea bargain under duress.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file revised production requests limited to the preliminary issues.

The applicants, former employees of the corporate respondent, filed 20 transitional applications alleging systemic discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and reprisal following a corporate downsizing and the issuance of severance packages.

The applicants requested that the applications be heard together, arguing that the corporate respondent used a ranking system that improperly considered age and participation in an attendance management program.

The respondents opposed the request, citing differences in the applicants' circumstances and grounds of discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, and directed the parties to schedule a case management meeting.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code regarding three previous complaints.

The Tribunal found that one complaint was settled and closed in 1999, another was not proven to be filed or continued as of June 30, 2008, and the third was not filed with the Trustee prior to June 30, 2008.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as it did not meet the requirements for a transition application, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1).

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against a corporate and a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a response, but the corporate respondent failed to do so despite being served.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to file a response within 15 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to comply may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Commission in 2006, which was subsequently settled along with related grievances in 2007.

In 2008, the Commission advised the applicant that the complaint was resolved.

The applicant then attempted to file an application with the Tribunal under the transition provisions of section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the complaint was no longer continued at the Commission at the time the application was filed, as it had already been resolved by settlement.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that the respondents' legal counsel be added as respondents, arguing that their position on behalf of the respondents contributed to the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that legal counsel representing their clients do not become party to the alleged discrimination merely by defending their clients' interests.

The Tribunal found no basis to exercise its discretion under section 36(5) of the Human Rights Code to add the proposed parties.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to add a new respondent to their human rights application.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the new party be added as a respondent and directed them to deliver a Response within 60 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer.

The Teamsters Local Union 938, representing the applicant's bargaining unit, requested non-party intervenor status.

The respondent supported the request, while the applicant opposed it, alleging the union had not represented him fairly.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, a bargaining agent will be granted intervenor status in applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding four human rights applications filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues, the Tribunal ordered that they proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide available dates for mediation.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the employer and the union regarding provisions in a collective agreement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary matters.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to process the applications separately, finding it fair and expeditious to process them together.

The Tribunal also found that the union was a proper respondent to the second application, despite the original complaint naming the fire department, as the corporate entity being complained about was evidently the union.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing on the basis that recent allegations necessitated the attendance of a personal respondent who was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Member hearing the preliminary matters retains the discretion to determine whether the recent allegations form part of the applications and whether the personal respondent's presence is required.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy on 'non-work related conditions', which had initially resulted in a denial of her benefits when she stopped working due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the essence of the complaint was a challenge to an adjudicative decision, and purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.