Kaye Joachim

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file Responses despite a previous interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to deem the respondents to have accepted all facts alleged in the Application and to have waived any right to participate in the proceedings.

A Case Resolution Conference was scheduled to allow the applicant to present evidence regarding requested remedies.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sought information on the status of the underlying complaint at the Commission.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant's file was closed as withdrawn before a formal complaint was filed or served.

As no complaint was filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, the Tribunal dismissed the section 53(3) application, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application under section 34 of the Code.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a parallel grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant argued that the grievance would not sufficiently address the conduct of two union members involved in the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that since the application was against the employer and employees acting on its behalf, their conduct could be addressed in the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The respondents argued that the applicant had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, barring her from filing under section 53 or section 34.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, it was not "filed" within the meaning of section 53(1) because the Commission closed the file as withdrawn before formally filing or serving it.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the section 53(5) application, noting that the applicant was not precluded from filing a new application under section 34.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming his former employer and several individuals, including a former employee, as respondents.

The former employee failed to pick up the application sent by courier and regular mail, and contacted the Tribunal to advise she was too ill to participate and objected to her contact information being shared.

The Tribunal directed that the former employee be deemed to have received the application and ordered her to file a Response.

The Tribunal held that if she wished to be removed as a respondent, she must first file a Response and then make a formal Request for an Order During Proceedings, providing any supporting medical evidence to all parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and family status regarding the termination of her employment.

She subsequently commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking Code remedies has been commenced and not finally determined.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) applied because the facts and issues in the court action were the same as those in the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Commission confirmed that the applicant's underlying complaint had been closed as withdrawn before the transition date.

The Tribunal held that the complaint was not 'filed' with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1) and dismissed the application, noting the applicant could still file a new application under section 34.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the underlying complaint had been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant had withdrawn the complaint before it was formally filed.

The Tribunal found that since no complaint was filed prior to the deadline, the applicant could not proceed under section 53(3).

The application was dismissed, with leave for the applicant to file a new application under section 34.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application.

She alleged procedural unfairness regarding an extended deadline for the respondents and challenged the Tribunal's finding that Notices of Termination were privileged.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness and noting the applicant failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application with leave to re-file a new application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave, without any terms.

The applicant filed several preliminary requests ahead of a Case Resolution Conference, including requests to add a school board trustee as a personal respondent, record the proceedings, call expert witnesses, compel the respondents to call certain witnesses, and direct the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the requests to add the respondent, record the proceedings, compel witnesses, and provide legal counsel.

The request to call a third expert witness was deferred to the adjudicator hearing the Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal also directed that the upcoming hearing dates be used to address the respondents' preliminary issues.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged age discrimination after her employer repeatedly asked her to identify a retirement date and later refused to defer that date.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer's requests for a retirement date were discriminatory, as they were motivated by performance concerns that would have been addressed differently for a younger employee.

However, the Tribunal found that the employer's refusal to defer the retirement date was not discriminatory, as it was based on having already hired a replacement.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, but her claim for lost wages was dismissed because she voluntarily chose the retirement date and failed to mitigate her damages by seeking alternative employment.

The applicant filed an 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 could not be filed because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and upheld its dismissal on reconsideration prior to the transition date.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the complaint was not 'continued' at the Commission at the time the application was made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with special needs, filed a human rights complaint against the respondent school board regarding special education placements and accommodations.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary requests by the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request for confidentiality, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the open court principle.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite the proceeding, as the applicant was no longer attending the respondent school board and sought primarily monetary compensation.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Ministry of Education as a party, finding that the Ministry's regulatory role did not make it responsible for the school board's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's specific needs.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her application could not be brought under section 53 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence that could be determinative.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant did not present any new facts or evidence but merely asserted that the original decision was wrong.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently requested an order granting the application because the respondents failed to file a Response within 35 days.

The respondents obtained an extension of time and filed their Response.

As both parties indicated a desire to mediate, the Tribunal directed the matter to mediation and deferred the applicant's request for default judgment, which may be raised later if mediation is unsuccessful.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the Case Resolution Conference because a lawyer at their retained firm resigned, causing a scheduling conflict for the remaining lawyers.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, noting he had already booked a flight from Alberta.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding insufficient explanation as to why another lawyer at the firm could not handle the matter and noting the financial hardship an adjournment would cause the applicant.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because her recently retained counsel might be unavailable due to an ongoing inquest.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing was scheduled months in advance with consent, the applicant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, and the personal respondent would be prejudiced by the delay.

The applicant filed a request to add 11 personal respondents to a human rights application less than three weeks before the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code and Tribunal Rule 6.3, applications must be dealt with expeditiously and preliminary requests to add parties are not entertained.

The Tribunal further noted that if the proposed respondents were acting within the scope of their employment, the corporate respondent would be liable for their actions, making it unnecessary to add them personally.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the WSIB and its adjudicators aided and abetted her employer in refusing to accommodate her disability by terminating her loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the purely adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, and the WSIB's decisions did not make it a party to the employer's alleged discrimination.