Kaye Joachim

The respondent requested an interim order requiring the self-represented applicant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to confirm his capacity to represent himself, or alternatively, a stay of proceedings.

The respondent argued the applicant's failure to participate in mediation and provide required documents demonstrated incompetence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no basis on the information provided to order a medical examination or stay the proceedings.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars prior to a scheduled mediation, including a copy of the original human rights complaint and specific details about the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Tribunal's Rules provide for production and statements of additional facts if mediation does not resolve the application, and that requests for particulars prior to mediation are discouraged.

The Tribunal enclosed a copy of the original complaint for certainty and directed the respondent to confirm its participation in the mediation.

The applicant filed transitional applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivity.

The respondents requested orders to dismiss or defer the applications.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer because an arbitrator remained seized of the accommodation plan implementation.

For the application against the union, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing for oral submissions on whether the application set out facts that could found a breach of the Code, noting that failure to represent an employee on a human rights matter is not automatically a Code breach.

The applicant filed applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which applies to complaints previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal sought information on the status of the underlying complaints.

The Commission advised that although it received complaint forms from the applicant, the files were closed at his request before being formally filed.

The Tribunal found that the complaints were not 'filed' with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1).

Consequently, the applicant could not proceed under section 53(3), and the applications were dismissed, without prejudice to his right to file a new application under section 34.

The respondents requested the removal of four personal respondents and the dismissal or deferral of the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of three personal respondents but objected to the removal of one.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the application against the remaining personal respondent and removed him.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, noting that a previously withdrawn grievance does not preclude the application.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to defer the application pending an ongoing arbitration, as the arbitration concerned a separate 2006 failure to accommodate allegation that was not significantly inter-related with the pre-2004 events raised in the application.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of three personal respondents named in the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, noting that the corporate respondent accepted liability for any conduct of its employees that might violate the Code and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the application against the individuals, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents.

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three procedural issues.

First, the Tribunal declined to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy phases, as both parties opposed it.

Second, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical records from treating physicians regarding her emotional state for the six months before and after the alleged discrimination, as she claimed substantial damages for mental anguish.

Third, the Tribunal refused to reconsider its prior ruling deferring the respondents' preliminary objections (including Charter and jurisdictional arguments) until after hearing evidence on the merits, finding that a clear factual context was necessary.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged discrimination by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for failing to accommodate his needs during a hearing.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether to add the LTB as a respondent.

Despite the respondents' argument that the LTB is not a legal entity capable of being sued, the Tribunal found that the LTB falls within the definition of a 'person' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 36(5) of the Code to add the LTB as a respondent, noting that the LTB is the appropriate entity to respond to allegations regarding its accommodation policies.

The respondent union sought an order requiring the applicant to produce confidential minutes of settlement and a release he had entered into with his employer regarding a related human rights complaint.

The applicant opposed production on the basis of settlement privilege.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, ordering production of the settlement and release documents as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's ability to continue the application against the union and to the calculation of potential damages.

The request for pre-settlement discussions was deferred to the hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to intervene in a transitional application under the Human Rights Code to address the issue of the liability of the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police for the actions of a police constable.

The respondents opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene, finding that the issue of liability was important, there was no case law on the liability of the Chief of Police, and the self-represented applicant might not be able to provide full argument on the issues.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

The respondents argued that the complaint was filed when it was received by the Commission, relying on the Commission's internal guides.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Commission's own processes did not treat the complaint as filed, and that interpreting the transitional provisions to bar the application would not serve the purpose of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents in a human rights proceeding requested an order for particulars of the applicant's requested remedies, which included $150,000 in monetary damages.

After the applicant provided further particulars citing medical issues and a work-related accident, the respondents sought production of his medical and employment records.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the production request, ordering that the applicant first give evidence on remedies and be cross-examined, after which submissions on production would be heard.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A Receivership Order stayed proceedings against the corporate respondent.

The applicant withdrew allegations against the corporate respondent and sought to continue against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found the Receivership Order did not stay proceedings against the personal respondent and directed the matter to proceed against him alone.

The respondent hospital requested the production of the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness file and the removal of a personal respondent from the style of cause.

The applicant did not object.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, noting she was not named in the original application, and ordered the applicant to sign a release for the medical file, as it contained information relevant to the issue of accommodation.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario varied the schedule for written submissions regarding the respondents' preliminary arguments.

The adjudicator deferred the determination of the respondents' arguments concerning the interpretation of 'sex' and section 20(1) of the Human Rights Code, as well as section 2(d) of the Charter, until after the evidentiary hearing.

However, the adjudicator directed that the respondents' arguments regarding section 11(d) of the Charter, abuse of process, and delay would be determined prior to the hearing, and set a timeline for the applicant and the Attorney General to respond.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that dismissed his transitional Application.

The original decision found that a transitional Application could not be filed after the Ontario Human Rights Commission had issued a reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the original decision was consistent with established jurisprudence and that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to consolidate his complaints and add three personal respondents to his transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request to consolidate because the second complaint filed with the Commission had been closed, leaving only one application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the personal respondents, finding it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding two years after the events, and noting that the corporate respondent would be bound by their actions in any event.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer and union regarding an alleged failure to accommodate his disability-related leave of absence and the union's failure to pursue his grievance.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested to add a party and amend the application against the employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code and Tribunal Rule 6.3, applications must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint.

The Tribunal found the requested amendments were unnecessary as they were merely clarifications or particulars rather than substantive amendments.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation regarding admission to a women's only fitness facility, the respondents sought production of various documents and particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant, a pre-operative transsexual at the time of the incident, to produce medical records relating to her transsexual surgery and treating physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' requests for documents relating to the bona fides of the applicant's membership application, counselling notes, restraining orders, and further particulars, finding them not arguably relevant to the issues of liability or necessary for a fair hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal Order that disposed of her human rights application in accordance with signed minutes of settlement.

She argued that she signed the settlement under duress, alleging her former counsel pressured her and that her judgment was clouded by medication.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant provided no medical evidence to support her claim of clouded judgment and failed to establish duress, particularly given she was represented by counsel at the time.