Kaye Joachim

The applicant, a teacher, alleged that the School Board and its employees discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour.

He claimed he was reported to the Ontario College of Teachers for failing to promptly report a potential sexual assault because he is Black, or as a reprisal for reporting a White teacher's misconduct.

He also alleged a senior official made a racist comment about his legal representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the School Board had cause to report the applicant and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not a reliable witness and concluded the alleged racist comment was never made.

Requests for production and summons were denied as irrelevant.

The applicant, a caretaker with medical restrictions, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed the respondent improperly deducted a sick day, assigned work violating his medical restrictions, and failed to reinstate his dental benefits.

The Tribunal found the sick day deduction was an administrative error that was corrected, the work assignment was modified when the applicant raised concerns, and the lack of dental benefits was due to the applicant's failure to enroll.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for missing the statutory deadline.

The reconsideration request was filed after the 30-day deadline under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as untimely and noted that, in any event, the applicant offered no new facts or arguments to justify reconsideration.

The applicant, a Black teacher, filed human rights complaints against his school board, his union (OSSTF), and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging racial discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents OSSTF and the College requested the dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations against the school board and OSSTF for falling outside the one-year limitation period, finding the applicant's bald assertion of fear of reprisal insufficient to establish good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applications against OSSTF and the College entirely, finding that their communications regarding the applicant's representation did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The application against the school board was permitted to continue regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the personal respondent, Angela Longo, from the human rights proceedings following her death.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and determined that there was no longer a compelling reason to keep her estate as a party.

The corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for her actions and had the capacity to provide any remedy, while potential remedies against the personal respondent, such as training, were no longer applicable.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The respondent objected to the applicants' statements of additional facts, arguing they improperly expanded the scope of the original human rights complaints.

The Tribunal found that the additional facts, which included pre- and post-complaint events and details regarding health conditions developed as a result of the respondent's alleged conduct, merely provided additional details or supported claims for remedy without expanding the scope of the applications.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file responses to these allegations and set out the order of proceedings for the upcoming hearing.

In an ongoing human rights application regarding accommodation in education, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on the admissibility of the applicant's proposed reply evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to provide her version of events to refute the respondents' witnesses but excluded evidence raising entirely new matters or collateral issues.

Audio recordings not previously disclosed were excluded, while late-disclosed emails were admitted.

The applicant's Request for Order seeking sanctions for alleged perjury was dismissed as premature.

The applicant, a tool and die maker with bilateral hand restrictions from work-related injuries, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed the employer failed to accommodate him, denied him overtime, subjected him to harassment by management and coworkers, and terminated his employment because of his disability.

The Tribunal found that the employer had accommodated the applicant by providing a bundle of tasks within his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also found that the lack of overtime was due to the nature of his modified duties, the alleged comments did not amount to harassment, and the termination was part of a mass layoff resulting from a plant closure, not based on his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application.

Her representative had previously sought an adjournment because he had lost contact with her, which was denied.

The respondent and intervenor attended the hearing and the respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, noting that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and keep their representatives informed of their whereabouts.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated his previous arguments and failed to meet any of the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's age restrictions for Junior A and B hockey discriminated against him on the basis of age, contrary to the Human Rights Code and the Charter.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for mootness, arguing the applicant was never registered with the association.

The applicant also sought to add his younger brother as a co-applicant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the motions, ordering the applicant and proposed co-applicant to file further affidavit evidence demonstrating their actual hockey experience and capacity to try out for Junior hockey.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to unforeseen work commitments and a pending request for production.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that scheduling conflicts with work do not constitute extraordinary circumstances and that a late production request cannot justify a last-minute adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against Legal Aid Ontario and two personal respondents, alleging discriminatory treatment in an investigation and historical differential treatment dating back to 1993.

The Tribunal dismissed the historical allegations under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, finding they were out of time, did not constitute a series of incidents, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondents from the proceedings, as their conduct was central to the allegations of racism and racial profiling.

The applicant sought to file a transitional human rights application but mistakenly delivered the materials to the Ontario Human Rights Commission instead of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal, following its previous decision in Wilkes v. Just Energy, held that an application delivered to the Commission in error by the deadline is considered 'made' to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the application and directed the respondents to file a response.

The applicant requested permission to hire a court reporter at his own expense to record the upcoming hearing, without the usual requirement to order and provide a transcript to the parties and the Tribunal due to cost.

The respondents opposed the request unless the applicant committed to ordering a transcript.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, waiving the requirement to pay for a transcript, but imposed strict conditions on the use of the recording to prevent the applicant from using it for collateral purposes such as media dissemination or writing a book.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status after being denied a transfer following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondents argued the Application's scope should be restricted to events prior to the February 2006 complaint date.

The Tribunal held that the ongoing dispute over the transfer request formed the subject matter of the original complaint, and therefore the Application properly includes interactions up to and including the applicant's dismissal or resignation in August 2006.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The applicant's counsel claimed the application was mailed prior to the deadline, but the Tribunal had no record of receiving it.

The Tribunal held that it has no discretion to extend the statutory deadline under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding insufficient evidence that the application was actually mailed to the Tribunal before the deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to deem the respondent, Multi Disciplinary Assessment Centre (MDAC), to have accepted all allegations in the human rights complaint due to its failure to file a Response.

MDAC subsequently filed its Response two days later.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, noting that MDAC had participated in mediation and clearly indicated its intention to participate in the proceedings, and that there was no prejudice to the applicant in permitting the late filing.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to intervene as a party in multiple transitional applications filed by former employees of the respondent who alleged age and disability discrimination following a corporate downsizing.

The Tribunal held that the Commission does not have an automatic right to intervene as a party in transitional applications and must seek leave.

Applying the test for intervention, the Tribunal granted the Commission limited intervenor status solely to call a witness to identify witness statements and statistical evidence obtained during its investigation, finding that full party status would cause significant disruption and delay to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the underlying complaint had already been dismissed by the Commission, and the request for reconsideration was also dismissed prior to the transition period.

Because the complaint was not continued at the time the section 53 application was filed, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.