Kaye Joachim

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they would not attend.

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

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

The respondents failed to attend the scheduled mediation, allegedly through inadvertence.

The applicant advised she no longer wished to participate in mediation and requested a case resolution conference.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and statements of fact in preparation for a case resolution conference, bypassing the usual requirement to complete a case management checklist at mediation.

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

The respondents advised they did not wish to participate in mediation.

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

The respondents requested that two separate human rights applications filed by two Operations Managers at the same ambulance communications centre be processed together.

Both applicants sought the same workplace accommodation based on family status, and granting accommodation to one could impact the ability to accommodate the other.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and issues, and ordered that they proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious process.

The applicant filed three transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against two condominium corporations and a property management company.

The applications involved similar facts and issues regarding shared recreational facilities.

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they were not interested in attending due to a scheduled mediation in a related civil action.

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 filed four separate applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging failures to provide sign language interpreters at all candidates meetings and failures to provide guidelines regarding accommodation obligations.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues and ordered that they proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the issues were already dealt with by the Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision converting the scheduled mediation date into a case resolution conference to hear the respondents' request to dismiss, and set a schedule for written submissions.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and requested summonses for six individuals to attend a case resolution conference.

The respondents had requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the facts alleged did not disclose a breach of the Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for summonses, noting that on a motion to dismiss for failing to disclose a breach, the Tribunal assumes the applicant's allegations are true, making witness testimony irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, which was later converted to a case resolution conference to hear the respondents' preliminary request to dismiss the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the conference due to counsel's unavailability.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and issued case management directions for the rescheduled conference, deferring the applicant's preliminary objections and request to add parties to be addressed at or after the conference.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently refused to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction ordering the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they did not want to participate.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against the respondent school board.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they would not attend and provided no reason.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction requiring the parties to exchange statements of 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 against the respondent union.

The applicant subsequently withdrew the application with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy to have her case expedited, citing a four-year delay since filing her original complaint with the Commission and resulting financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the applicant's frustration was understandable, there were no particular indications of urgency to justify expediting the Tribunal's already highly expeditious process, especially given that a mediation was already scheduled for October 2008.

The Commission requested a pre-hearing ruling to admit an email sent by respondents' counsel to the Commission, which contained a communication to the client regarding potential termination of the complainant.

The Commission also sought to amend its pleadings to add a new remedy.

The Tribunal ruled that the email was inadmissible because it was not relevant to the issues in the complaint and its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The request to amend the pleadings was also denied as the proposed remedy was unrelated to the original complaint and sought only to render the contested document admissible.

The complainant, a tennis instructor with epilepsy, alleged discrimination in employment by the respondents.

After experiencing seizures at work, the respondents required him to disclose his condition to all staff and private clients, and criticized him for not disclosing it upon hiring.

The respondents also cited his failure to deal openly with his epilepsy as a reason for not rehiring him for the following season.

The Tribunal found that the disclosure requirements and the consideration of his epilepsy in the rehiring decision constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in general damages and ordered public interest remedies, including training and the creation of an anti-discrimination policy.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal, the respondents failed to file a response to the Commission's pleadings and failed to attend a pre-hearing conference call in a timely manner.

The respondents subsequently argued the Commission's pleadings lacked sufficient particulars but did not file a proper motion.

The Tribunal declined to issue an interim decision on the sufficiency of the pleadings as no proper request was before it.

The Tribunal issued case management directions, requiring the respondents to provide a referenced letter and directing the parties to prepare witness lists for a further scheduling conference call.