Kaye Joachim

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by section 34(11)(a) of the Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged infringement.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to determine this preliminary jurisdictional issue prior to mediation and ordered the parties to file written submissions.

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

The respondents declined to participate in mediation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1, arguing the substance was already dealt with by the Employment Standards Branch.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to address the preliminary objection prior to mediation, cancelled the scheduled mediation, and set a schedule for written submissions on the request to dismiss or defer the application.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against his union and his employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision finding that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application and the matter was scheduled for mediation.

The respondents requested an adjournment, which the applicant opposed by refusing to participate in a rescheduled mediation.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions to move the matter forward to a case resolution conference, ordering the exchange of documents and statements of facts.

Two applicants filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation by the same respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a human rights application alleging that his union and its representatives discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry and place of origin by failing to pursue grievances against his employer.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the application, even as amended, did not set out a factual basis that could give rise to a finding that the union represented the applicant differently based on his ancestry or place of origin, or that the union became a party to the employer's alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent argued that the underlying complaint was never properly filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and therefore could not be continued under section 53(3).

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties and the Commission to provide additional information and written submissions regarding the status of the complaint before determining its jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation because one of the named respondents was out of the country.

The applicant refused to agree to the adjournment or offer alternative dates.

The Tribunal held that one party cannot unilaterally insist on proceeding when another is legitimately unavailable.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and directed the applicant to advise whether he wished to reschedule.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

After a mediation was cancelled due to the applicant's intention not to attend, the Tribunal scheduled a case resolution conference.

The applicant advised he would not attend any future dates because he would miss a full day's pay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision explaining that applicants bear the responsibility to attend and present evidence.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide available dates within 10 days, failing which the application would be treated as abandoned.

The respondents brought a motion to strike disability-related allegations from the complainant's human rights complaint and sought production of medical and financial documents.

The Tribunal struck the disability-related allegations, finding they did not form part of the subject matter of the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for documents relating to the disability claim as irrelevant, and denied the request for medical and financial information as premature given the bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce portions of personnel records relating to the remaining allegations.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondent refused to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting out the timeline for the parties to file their responses, statements of additional facts, and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and named a personal respondent who was not part of the original complaint.

The Tribunal ruled that the personal respondent could not be added at this stage, as applications must be based on the original complaint's subject matter.

Furthermore, because the respondent had not been served with the application and had a scheduling conflict, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled mediation and directed the applicant to serve the respondent.

The applicant sought clarification of a previous interim decision regarding the order of proceedings at an upcoming case resolution conference.

The Tribunal clarified that the applicant's objection to the participation of respondents' counsel will be heard first, and the decision to proceed with the respondents' preliminary requests to dismiss will depend on the outcome of that objection.

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

After issues with service and scheduling, the respondents requested to reschedule the mediation.

The applicant declined to participate in a rescheduled mediation, alleging the respondents were attempting to delay the process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to bypass mediation and proceed with the exchange of pleadings and documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents refused to participate, advising they had not yet been served with the application.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting timelines for service, pleadings, and document production in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions, setting a schedule for the exchange of documents and statements of facts in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondents wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting a schedule for the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference.

The applicant, a non-orthodox kosher caterer, filed a human rights application alleging that comments made during a rabbinical arbitration amounted to discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, creed, or race.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a breach of the Code.

The Tribunal found that arguments made during the arbitration regarding the Kashruth Council's shomer Shabbat policy did not amount to discrimination.

Furthermore, comments allegedly made by the arbitrator could not result in a finding against the named respondents.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, race, and creed by refusing to provide him with an application for certification as a kosher caterer.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to set out a factual basis for discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant conceded he had no evidence regarding colour, race, or ethnic origin, and his vague assertion regarding creed was insufficient to shift the evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate due to his health condition and requested to proceed directly to a hearing.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting a schedule for the parties to file their responses, additional facts, and relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.