Kaye Joachim

The applicants, who were minors at the time of the events, sought an interim order to consolidate their applications, remove their litigation guardians, and obtain a confidentiality order under Rule 5.11.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Education Act demonstrate a legislative intention to protect the privacy of young persons in conflict with the criminal justice system.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicants and witnesses be referred to by their initials.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add a former HR director as a personal respondent and requested an extension of time to file documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the party, noting it would detract from the expeditious nature of the transitional proceeding and that there were no specific allegations against her.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, as the respondents suffered no prejudice from the delay.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting that preliminary motions are discouraged in such applications and are best addressed at the start of the Case Resolution Conference.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal based on judicial and statutory immunity.

The Tribunal noted that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not named as a party and issued interim directions for the parties and the Board to make submissions on whether the Board should be added to the proceedings.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference, citing medical inability to attend due to stress related to her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the medical note provided did not demonstrate an inability to attend the hearing and that the circumstances were not exceptional.

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

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the arbitration would not address ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisals that occurred after the grievance was filed.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the overlapping factual matters and the advanced stage of the arbitration proceedings favoured deferral, and that the pre-June 2006 allegations should be dealt with first.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and three individuals.

The corporate respondent sought early dismissal or deferral due to a parallel arbitration proceeding and refused to accept delivery for a former employee, citing privacy concerns.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the former employee's last known address and directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the request for deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint which was referred to the Tribunal by the Commission.

While the complaint was paused for settlement discussions, the applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on the same subject matter.

The Tribunal ruled it had no authority to accept the section 53(5) application because the complaint was already before the Tribunal, noting the applicant could ask to resume processing her original complaint at any time.

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

The applicant's union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, requested to intervene to ensure that any remedy would not adversely impact the interpretation or application of the collective agreement.

As neither party opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant, an African Canadian relief letter carrier, alleged that a police officer discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour when he was stopped and questioned while delivering mail in an affluent neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the officer's decision to place the applicant under surveillance, stop him, and make subsequent inquiries was influenced by the applicant's colour, rather than any unusual behaviour.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer breached the applicant's right to equal treatment with respect to services without discrimination on the basis of colour, contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy and the liability of the other respondents to be determined at a later date.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex after being denied admission to a women-only fitness facility.

The respondents filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that a finding of discrimination would violate women's freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter, and that the human rights process violated the personal respondent's rights under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter.

The respondents sought to have these constitutional issues determined before the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal ordered that the section 7 and 11(b) arguments be determined via written submissions during an adjournment necessitated by the applicant's health, while the section 2(d) argument would be dealt with at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

The employer and union brought requests for early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the employer's request to dismiss allegations older than one year, finding they formed a series of incidents culminating in the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the complaint against the union regarding its handling of the termination grievance under section 45.1, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, as the OLRB had not addressed the discrimination issue, though the applicant was barred from re-litigating the OLRB's factual findings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union regarding a May 2006 accommodation request due to unexplained delay.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that an earlier Interim Decision was issued prior to the receipt of his reply submissions.

The Adjudicator reviewed the reply submissions and found nothing that would alter the conclusions reached in the earlier decision refusing to add a party and amend the Application.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits and preliminary requests for early dismissal.

The applicant, a student with learning disabilities, alleged the school board discriminated against him by failing to provide appropriate special education programs and by suspending him without accommodating his disability.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to remove personal respondents, dismiss the application for mootness, and dismiss the special education claims for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Special Education Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents but found the application was not moot and that it retained jurisdiction to determine whether the school board's actions, including the implementation of the Individual Education Plan and the suspensions, breached the Human Rights Code.

The hearing was bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he was registered in a full-time training program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had known about the hearing date for months and that a scheduling conflict with a training program did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a late adjournment.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, filed a human rights application alleging that the Minister of Education discriminated against him by failing to provide or fund appropriate special education programs, specifically intensive intervention.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing it was bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Wynberg.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the claim indistinguishable from Wynberg, which held that the Ministry's failure to mandate Intensive Behavioural Intervention in school boards did not amount to prima facie discrimination on the basis of disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued the application was barred because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and upheld its dismissal on reconsideration before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was finally dealt with when the Commission refused reconsideration, extinguishing the right to file a transitional application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal previously advised the applicant that the application was incomplete.

The applicant subsequently copied the Tribunal on numerous lengthy emails addressed to the respondents that were unrelated to the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to cease copying the Tribunal on emails unless the subject line specifically relates to the current application.

The applicant filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against his employer and union.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought to add an individual as a personal respondent to the union application and to amend the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the party, citing Rule 6.3 and the need for an expeditious process, noting the individual's actions would bind the union if acting as its agent.

The request to amend was also denied as the proposed changes were merely clarifications or particulars.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested a stay, deferral, or adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference pending the outcome of a judicial review in a separate matter (King v. Toronto Police Services Board) concerning the Board's liability for the actions of individual police officers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding with the hearing without further delay, and noted the Board's unreasonable delay in raising the request.