Kaye Joachim

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, originally alleging discrimination based on age, race, and receipt of public assistance regarding a denial of forklift training.

After obtaining representation, the applicant withdrew the original grounds and sought to add mental disability as the ground of discrimination.

The respondent requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal held that adding disability amounted to an impermissible expansion of the subject matter of the original complaint under Rule 6.3.

As the original grounds were withdrawn, the Tribunal found no issues remaining in dispute and directed the parties to advise if they wished to make further submissions on final disposition.

The respondents requested an early dismissal or an adjournment of the human rights application, alleging that the applicant failed to comply with a previous interim decision ordering her to provide full particulars of her allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request at this stage, determining that the issue of compliance and any resulting consequences would be best addressed by the Member at the upcoming Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent asserted that it is a federally regulated organization and its actions were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Based on uncontradicted evidence that the corporate respondent's services extend beyond the Ontario border, the Tribunal found it to be a federal undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to dismiss or defer the human rights application in light of a pending arbitration.

The Tribunal had inadvertently issued the interim decision before reviewing the respondents' reply submissions.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that a prior grievance settlement encompassed all allegations, nor that the withdrawal of another grievance meant the substance of the application had been dealt with.

The Tribunal also found no overlap between the current application and an outstanding grievance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested early dismissal of a transitional human rights application because the applicant filed his statement of additional facts and remedy late and without sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that transitional applications are intended to be dealt with expeditiously and that entertaining preliminary objections would detract from this goal.

The Tribunal found the lack of particulars did not prevent the respondents from filing a response, and any consequences of the late filing would be addressed at the Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that Rule 25.1 only permits reconsideration of final decisions, and an interim decision deferring an application is not a final decision.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour regarding his termination of employment and the union's subsequent failure to take his grievance to arbitration.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to confirm the number of persons terminated for the same incident in 2006 and 2007, finding it arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also ordered the union to produce the Grievance Appeal Report, rejecting the union's claim of privilege because the grievance procedure itself formed the basis of the alleged discrimination.

The request for production of the number of union appeals and arbitrations was denied as irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in a job competition.

The matter was deferred pending a parallel arbitration.

During the arbitration, the applicant signed Minutes of Settlement and a letter withdrawing the human rights application in exchange for $1,500.

He subsequently sought to continue the application, claiming he signed under duress and was hurried by his union representative.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence, finding he did not sign under duress and had acted in bad faith by intending to pursue the application despite the settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The respondents requested the early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment based on race and other grounds.

The respondents argued that the substance of the application had been dealt with through prior union grievances that were either settled or withdrawn, and that an outstanding grievance warranted deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the settlement terms of a prior grievance did not preclude the human rights complaint, the union's unilateral withdrawal of another grievance did not constitute an agreement by the applicant to withdraw her complaint, and there was no factual overlap with the outstanding grievance to justify deferral.

The respondents requested that the personal respondents be removed from the human rights proceedings.

The adjudicator refused the request, noting that preliminary motions are discouraged in section 53(3) applications, which are designed to be dealt with expeditiously.

The adjudicator held that such requests are best dealt with at the Case Resolution Conference, especially since the personal respondents would be required to attend to give evidence in any event.

The complainant, a civilian employee of the Toronto Police Services Board of Afghan descent, alleged he was subjected to a poisoned work environment following a discriminatory telephone message left by a colleague the day after September 11, 2001.

He also alleged historical discrimination dating back to 1994 and that the employer failed to adequately investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that the colleague who left the message discriminated against the complainant.

While the employer's initial investigation into the message was not discriminatory, the Tribunal found the employer breached the Code by failing to take adequate steps to quell workplace speculation that the complainant was a terrorist suspect, and by failing to investigate his allegations of historical discrimination.

The applicants requested to consolidate two applications made under the Human Rights Code, one filed under section 34 and the other under the transition provisions (section 53(5)).

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that both applications arose out of the same incident and involved the same parties and issues.

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

The Tribunal noted that it has no jurisdiction to consider an application under section 53(3) unless it is based on the subject-matter of a complaint filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide information regarding the status of the applicant's complaint and directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Application was properly filed.

The applicant, a single mother in receipt of public assistance, alleged discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its staff regarding the handling of her claim to the Compensation Fund.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested production of the entire Law Society Complaints Process file.

The Tribunal found that documents containing private information about the lawyer and communications between the lawyer and the Law Society were not relevant to the discrimination claim.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce internal communications that contained any reference to or about the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found the application was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant did not present any new facts or evidence, did not identify any conflicting jurisprudence, and essentially re-argued the jurisdiction issue.

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

Following a previous interim decision, the applicant filed an additional statement of facts.

The respondent then filed a request for early dismissal and objected to the attempted expansion of the application, seeking to delay filing its own additional statement of facts until the request was determined.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file its additional statement of facts and response to remedy before the Tribunal considers the request for early dismissal.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add his direct supervisor as a personal respondent, asserting that a bureaucratic oversight at the Commission prevented this earlier.

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

Adding a party almost four years after the alleged conduct would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding, and the corporate respondent would be bound by the supervisor's actions in any event.

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

The respondents requested the early dismissal of the application against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal removed one personal respondent on consent but refused to remove the remaining two personal respondents at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal noted that preliminary motions are discouraged in expedited section 53(3) applications and that the request is best addressed at the Case Resolution Conference, as the personal respondents would be required to attend to give evidence in any event.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with a previous Tribunal order regarding disclosure and statements of fact.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding it was not plain and obvious that the applicant's explanation for missing the deadline was untrue.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request, ordering the applicant to provide copies of transit transfers and written transcripts of the disputed audio tapes.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because it conflicted with the OPSEU annual convention.

The applicant opposed the request but did not assert prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the timely request, the availability of alternative dates within a month, and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.