Kaye Joachim

The applicant alleged that her building manager sexually solicited her, made sexually demeaning comments, and issued eviction notices in retaliation for her objections.

The respondents denied the allegations and asserted that the eviction notices were privileged and based on tenant complaints.

The Tribunal refused a preliminary request to bar the applicant's representative, finding insufficient evidence of abuse of process.

The Tribunal also found that statements in the eviction notices were protected by absolute privilege.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence unreliable and concluded that the eviction notices were prompted by tenant complaints, not retaliation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and record of offences while in a correctional facility.

The respondents requested an order that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was ousted under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant's counsel had provided formal notice of a potential civil action under the Proceedings against the Crown Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding that a civil proceeding had not yet been commenced within the meaning of section 34(11)(a).

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code after the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already dismissed her underlying complaint.

The Tribunal held that because the complaint had been dismissed and no reconsideration was requested, the complaint was not 'continued' at the Commission.

Therefore, the applicant could not abandon the complaint to file an application, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The applicant filed an Application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and requested it be dealt with on a priority basis.

The Tribunal noted uncertainty regarding whether the underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission before the June 30, 2008 deadline.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide information regarding the filing date and status of the complaint, and directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Application is properly before the Tribunal.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to accept a transitional human rights application, arguing that the application named an incorrect contact person and was delivered by fax without consent, exceeding the page limit.

The Tribunal found that the application was received before the statutory deadline and that the alleged delivery defects were unduly technical.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

She argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the duty to accommodate and the identification of a disability.

The Tribunal found that its previous findings were factual conclusions based on evidence, not legal errors, and that it had applied the correct legal tests, including the Meiorin test.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference after seeking to add allegations of reprisal and harassment to the application and requesting document production, which the respondent opposed.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the contested preliminary requests could be addressed at the commencement of the Case Resolution Conference without interfering with the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, seeking to transition a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the underlying complaint had already been closed.

The Tribunal reviewed correspondence from the Commission confirming the complaint was closed on October 29, 2007.

Consequently, there was no continued complaint within the meaning of section 53 to transition, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to add an allegation of reprisal and new personal respondents.

The applicant claimed he had previously requested this amendment from the Commission before abandoning his complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the reprisal allegations did not form part of the subject matter of the abandoned complaint and that expanding the scope would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding.

The Tribunal also addressed the respondents' request to reschedule the hearing dates, directing the applicant to advise of any prejudice that would result from moving the hearing to earlier dates.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated due to his taking a six-week sick leave.

In this interim decision on a production request, the Tribunal considered the respondent's submissions despite being filed one day late.

The Tribunal found the applicant's request for the names, contact information, and sick leave records of all employees hired, promoted, demoted, or terminated in 2005 and 2006 to be overbroad.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce anonymized data regarding the employment status and sick leave history of technical and supervisory employees affected by the restructuring initiative.

The respondents requested a confidentiality order to protect the business records of the corporate respondent, seeking restrictions on copying, disclosure, and retention of the documents.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted that the Notice of Case Resolution Conference already restricts the use of disclosed materials to the proceedings.

Finding no submissions to support the need for greater protection, the Tribunal declined to issue the requested orders.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code on November 27, 2008, based on a complaint dated September 9, 2008.

The Tribunal directed written submissions on jurisdiction.

Section 53(3) only applies to complaints filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

Since the underlying complaint was dated September 9, 2008, it was not filed prior to June 30, 2008.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to accept the application and dismissed it.

The respondent sought to dismiss the human rights application after the applicant failed to comply with a prior Tribunal direction to provide particulars and documents by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, instead granting the applicant one final opportunity to file the required materials and a written explanation for the delay, and setting a revised schedule for the upcoming case resolution conference.

The applicant requested an order requiring the respondent to provide the last known contact information for two former employees named as personal respondents in a human rights complaint.

The respondent did not object but required a Tribunal order to release the personal information.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested contact information within 10 days.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and claimed WSIB benefits.

When he was cleared to return to work with restrictions, the respondent employer claimed no modified work was available.

When the applicant was later cleared for regular duties, the employer refused to take him back, claiming a lack of work, despite having hired a replacement.

The Tribunal found the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's disability and terminated his employment because of his disability-related absence, in breach of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded lost wages and general damages.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy of $400 per week in wages until the application is resolved.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as the application involved a loss of work opportunity and the applicant was not dependent on the income sought.

The applicant filed an Application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which allows a complainant who filed a complaint with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, to abandon it and file with the Tribunal.

The Commission advised that although it received a completed complaint form from the applicant, it was closed as an inquiry only and no formal complaint was filed.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to process the Application under section 53(3) because no complaint was filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

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 respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the underlying complaint against the respondent prior to the transition period.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that since the complaint against the named respondent was finally determined by the Commission, there was no 'continued complaint' that could be abandoned to form the basis of a section 53(3) application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, transitioning a complaint originally filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had dismissed the complaint and the applicant failed to file a timely request for reconsideration.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's request for reconsideration was filed outside the statutory 15-day period and the Commission had not granted an extension.

Consequently, the complaint was not 'continued' within the meaning of section 53, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.