Kaye Joachim

The respondents requested an adjournment of a Case Resolution Conference scheduled for March 6, 2009, which had been selected after consultation with the parties.

The respondents argued they needed time to prepare materials to remove the applicant's representative and to review a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the respondents had ample time since November 2008 to file their requests and offered no explanation for their unavailability on the agreed date.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated his allegations of discrimination and failed to satisfy the requirements for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy to return him to the respondent's payroll, as well as an expedited process due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring an abridgement of time limits, and failed to provide evidence or submissions on the merits or balance of harm to support an interim remedy.

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

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to explain how a complaint dated September 9, 2008, could have been filed with the Commission before June 30, 2008.

The applicant asserted it was filed on April 21, 2008, but provided no explanation for the date discrepancy.

The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction unless the complaint was filed prior to June 30, 2008, and ordered that the application will be dismissed within 20 days unless the applicant provides evidence of the filing date.

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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging racial discrimination, arguing it should have been dealt with under the grievance procedure of the Labour Relations Act and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the grievance did not address the discrimination allegations and was not referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request for the production of arguably relevant medical documents relating to the applicant's health condition on the day the respondents alleged he was intoxicated.

The applicant, who has a learning disability, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) failed to accommodate her disability during the Bus Operator training program, improperly terminated her employment, and subjected her to a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that the TTC made reasonable efforts to accommodate the applicant's learning needs once they were clearly communicated.

Relying on a vocational assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was incapable of performing the essential duties of a Bus Operator even with accommodation.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a poisoned work environment and held that the TTC had no obligation to offer an alternative position to a job applicant who could not perform the job applied for.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision identifying outstanding preliminary issues, including whether the applicant could amend the complaint, whether notice should be given to the school board, whether a prima facie case was established, and the effect of prior jurisprudence on the Ministry's liability.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the delivery of written submissions on these issues.

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

The Tribunal noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to refer the underlying complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to provide information regarding whether she had sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision, and ordering the respondent to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

In advance of a case resolution conference, the applicant objected to the respondents' failure to provide witness evidence summaries, and the respondents objected to the introduction of medical reports without the authors present for cross-examination.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to provide witness summaries in accordance with the newly amended Rules of Procedure, and directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the necessity of cross-examining the medical practitioners.

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

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the allegations did not disclose a Code breach.

The Tribunal noted that the underlying complaint was dated September 9, 2008, after the Ontario Human Rights Commission ceased accepting complaints on July 1, 2008.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining when the complaint was filed with the Commission to determine if it had jurisdiction.

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

The underlying complaint was undated, unsigned, and lacked a Commission file number, raising questions about whether it was properly filed before the transition deadline.

The respondents also requested deferral pending the resolution of the applicant's grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide information on the status of the complaint and directed the parties to file written submissions on both the jurisdictional and deferral issues.

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

The respondent filed its Response, declined to attend mediation, and requested reconsideration of a prior interim decision denying its request for particulars.

The Tribunal found the reconsideration request moot and issued case management directions requiring both parties to exchange additional facts, particulars, and arguably relevant documents, and to schedule a Case Resolution Conference.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment based on ethnic origin, the Tribunal addressed case management issues, an amendment to the complaint, and the admissibility of an expert witness.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the complaint to add the ground of creed, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal excluded the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism and Islamophobia, applying the Mohan criteria.

The Tribunal found the proposed evidence was within the adjudicator's knowledge and that the expert had improperly formed conclusions on the ultimate issues to be decided.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to identify the proper respondents.

The Tribunal held that only parties named in the original complaint to the Commission are parties to the application.

As the Ministry of Education, Gerry Connolly, and Sheila Ward were not named in the original complaint, they are not properly respondents.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions if seeking to add parties under Rule 5.15.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the proceedings for over six months because its chosen counsel was on maternity leave.

The respondent argued this was a Code-related accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issue was primarily about choice of counsel rather than accommodation.

Given the counsel's limited involvement to date and the availability of other lawyers at the same firm, the Tribunal held that a lengthy adjournment would unfairly prejudice the applicant's right to an expeditious hearing under section 53(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants requested to advance the date of a case resolution hearing scheduled for April 2009, questioning the respondents' assertion that a serious illness prevented their attendance at an earlier mediation.

The Tribunal reviewed medical documents submitted by the respondents and found that the respondent was hospitalized for a potentially serious medical situation on the date of the mediation.

Satisfied that the medical situation was substantiated, the Tribunal denied the applicants' request to advance the hearing date.

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

The respondent indicated that a civil court action raising similar issues had been commenced.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by s. 34(11) of the Code or should be deferred under s. 45 pending the completion of the civil action.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.