Kaye Joachim

The applicant alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her lower back injury and ultimately terminating her employment.

The Tribunal found that the employer fully cooperated with the WSIB to develop and implement return-to-work plans, providing modified duties, scheduling accommodations, and a chair.

The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary actions taken against the applicant, including a suspension, were based on a good faith belief of inadequate performance and insubordination, not her disability.

Furthermore, the applicant was not terminated but remained an employee on medical leave.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability in their administration of her social assistance benefits, which she claimed led to her eviction.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith due to her mental health issues, the application must be dismissed because the applicant failed to set out facts that could give rise to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was essentially disputing the results of statutory decision-makers, which does not constitute a discriminatory service under the Code.

The applicant, whose driver's license was suspended due to alcohol dependence, alleged that the Ministry of Transportation's practice of automatically suspending licenses based on physician reports and requiring a 12-month abstinence period for reinstatement discriminated against him on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the suspension was based on an individualized assessment of driving risk rather than the disability itself.

Furthermore, the 12-month abstinence policy was grounded in medical consensus regarding addiction recovery and road safety.

The Tribunal concluded that the policies did not perpetuate prejudice or stereotyping and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied an adjournment request.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its rules and jurisprudence, interim decisions that do not dispose of central issues are not subject to reconsideration.

The applicants filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Interim Decision (2010 HRTO 2499).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the decision in question was clearly an interim decision and therefore not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which only permit reconsideration of final decisions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to interview and summons witnesses, and to seek assistance from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the applicant provided no explanation for his delay in preparing for the hearing, which had been scheduled for months.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately disclose audio recordings to the respondents and deferred any consequences for non-compliance to the hearing.

The applicant in an employment discrimination case filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further document production, an exemption from providing a witness list due to reprisal concerns, and an adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as overly broad, noting the issue could be revisited at the hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the exemption from providing a witness list, emphasizing that the Code protects witnesses from reprisal.

Both parties were ordered to immediately exchange witness lists and proposed evidence.

The adjournment request was denied, and the Tribunal bifurcated the hearing to deal with liability first.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment as a receptionist because of her pregnancy, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pregnancy and related high blood pressure were factors in the termination of her employment.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $9,328 for lost wages, $6,000 for lost parental benefits, $601 in pre-judgment interest, and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The personal respondent was not held liable.

The applicant, a child with autism, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent discriminated against her by denying speech therapy and offering augmentative communication therapy instead.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal clarified the scope of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to events prior to November 2006 as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, finding they did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request for early dismissal based on the Cooper decision, noting the applicant was challenging the respondent's assessment of her needs as discriminatory, rather than challenging the provincial funding regime.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial harassment and reprisal in employment.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application regarding disability accommodation and lay-off.

The applicant argued there was a factual error regarding a plant location and disputed the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the factual discrepancy was minor and the applicant merely re-argued his case without presenting new facts or evidence as required by Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability shortly before his death.

His spouse filed a transitional Application in respect of the complaint before obtaining formal authority as Estate Trustee.

The respondents argued the Application was a nullity because the spouse lacked legal authority at the time of filing.

The Tribunal held that administrative proceedings should not be bogged down by procedural technicalities and that it would be unfair to dismiss the Application, as the respondents had been aware of the allegations since 2006.

The Application was permitted to proceed.

The applicants, former employees of a closed refinery, alleged age and disability discrimination when they were not hired for new positions within the respondent company.

The Tribunal heard the evidence of the lead applicant, who alleged his placement on an attendance management program negatively impacted his performance ranking and subsequent failure to be hired.

The Tribunal found the statistical evidence unreliable and concluded the lead applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his disability played a role in his performance assessment, ranking, or the decision not to hire him.

The applicant, sentenced under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, sought to remain in a youth facility after turning 20.

The Provincial Director refused the request, and the applicant was transferred to an adult facility.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of a service.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the Provincial Director's decision was an adjudicative decision, not a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the decision-making process, which included the opportunity to make submissions and an appeal to the Custody Review Board, was adjudicative in nature.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a Black male, alleged that he was stopped, handcuffed, and searched by Peel Regional Police officers because of his race.

The officers testified that the applicant was stopped for failing to display a front licence plate, and was subsequently arrested and searched after they observed a cigarillo, a small plastic bag, and smelled marijuana.

The adjudicator found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistencies in his evidence.

The adjudicator accepted the officers' evidence, concluding that the stop and search were based on reasonable grounds and that race played no role in the officers' actions.

The human rights application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application due to the applicant's failure to disclose documents by the Tribunal's deadline.

The applicant responded that he did not intend to rely on any further documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the failure to produce documents did not justify dismissing the application at this stage and that the respondent was not prejudiced.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that decisions of Claims Adjudicators under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act do not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while there is a division of opinion within the Tribunal on this issue, the original decision reflected one branch of evolving jurisprudence rather than a departure from established case law.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on colour arising from a police stop and search.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the police complaints process, which included an investigation and review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that a WSIB return to work mediation was not a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established case law and that he was denied natural justice by not being allowed to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal held that it had the authority to determine its jurisdiction based on written submissions and affirmed that the WSIB mediation process is immune from review under the Code.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The parties agreed to anonymize the names of the applicant and her litigation guardian.

The respondents further requested that their names be anonymized to protect the applicant's identity.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, anonymizing the personal respondent's name but declining to anonymize the organizational respondent, a large metropolitan school board, as it would not reasonably identify the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed that past decisions be amended to reflect the anonymization.