Kaye Joachim

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

The respondents asserted that the complaint was not continued within the meaning of the Code because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to refer the subject matter to the Tribunal under section 36(2) of the old Code.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide additional information and written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

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 declining to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction, ordering the parties to exchange documents and statements of facts in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The respondents requested that the scheduled mediation be postponed pending their submissions that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, asserting there was no employment relationship under the Health Insurance Act.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and directed that the jurisdictional issue be dealt with as a preliminary issue at a case resolution conference, setting a schedule for the delivery of statements of additional facts and documents.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to properly serve two personal respondents and ordered her to do so within 30 days.

The served respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already decided not to refer the complaint.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The first application related to the failure to assign a full-time presiding appointment, and the second related to the failure to indemnify for legal costs.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, and issued case management directions regarding preliminary objections and a future case resolution conference.

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

The applicant requested to add the Ministry as a party, which the Tribunal denied because the Ministry was not named in the original Commission complaint and no exceptional circumstances existed.

The Tribunal also raised a jurisdictional issue on its own initiative, noting the Commission had previously dismissed the underlying complaint.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application constitutes a continued complaint under section 53(3).

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

After the Tribunal scheduled a mediation, the applicant indicated he would not miss work to attend, and the respondent offered to meet on evenings or weekends, which the Tribunal does not accommodate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and statements of fact in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding, and objected to mediation because the applicant's trade union had exclusive bargaining authority.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled mediation, directed that notice of the proceeding be given to the trade union, and established a schedule for submissions on the preliminary request for early dismissal.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondents subsequently refused to participate and requested a case management meeting instead.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting timelines for the parties to exchange additional facts, requested remedies, and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was untimely, partially settled, and should be deferred pending an arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to address the preliminary objections and request to defer prior to the scheduled mediation.

The mediation was cancelled, and a schedule was set for the parties to file submissions on the preliminary issues.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against his employer and his union.

The Tribunal found that several personal respondents had not been properly served and ordered the applicant to serve them.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two applications proceed together given the similar facts.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to hear preliminary objections regarding delay, abuse of process, and jurisdiction prior to mediation, cancelling the scheduled mediation date.

The respondents requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the outcome of a scheduled arbitration on the same subject matter, and requested that the applicant's union be given notice of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that mediation would be more productive if the union was given notice and invited to attend.

The Tribunal directed that notice of the mediation be delivered to the union.

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

Due to scheduling conflicts and delays in setting a mediation date, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the mediation and directed the parties to prepare for a case resolution conference to ensure the application is processed expeditiously.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the underlying complaint was untimely and subject to a signed release.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the early dismissal request prior to proceeding with the scheduled mediation.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against the respondent school board and several individuals.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, seeking to dismiss or defer the application pending the outcome of an arbitration on the same matter.

The Tribunal found the union's request to intervene premature under the Tribunal's Rules.

However, the Tribunal noted that the deferral issue raised a serious question and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against different respondents, setting out virtually identical allegations.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for mediation and case resolution conference to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation until January 2009 because he was unexpectedly called to Germany to care for a terminally ill family member and handle subsequent estate issues.

The respondents consented to the adjournment but noted potential prejudice from fading memories.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the mediation for February 2, 2009, directing the applicant to advise if he returns earlier.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondent advised she did not wish to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions requiring the parties to exchange statements of facts, remedies sought, and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The respondents argued that the application was an abuse of process because the Commission had already decided not to refer the complaint to the Tribunal, and the applicant had requested an extension of time for reconsideration.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide additional documents and submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the application.

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

The respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the application was an abuse of process because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to refer the complaint, and a reconsideration request remained outstanding.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide additional information and written submissions on the jurisdictional issue before making a determination.