Kaye Joachim

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.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide current contact information for the corporate respondent after correspondence was returned by Canada Post.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction and a subsequent Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against Best Buy, Cadillac Fairview, and individual respondents alleging discrimination based on colour, age, and disability after being escorted from a mall and issued a trespass notice.

Cadillac Fairview requested an order removing Rachael Jensen as a personal respondent and dismissing the application against it for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal removed Jensen as she was not mentioned in the original complaint and was not employed by Cadillac Fairview at the time.

The request to dismiss the application was deferred to the scheduled hearing.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to provide available dates for a hearing despite multiple requests and failed to respond to Tribunal directions asking whether she intended to proceed or wished to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sought information from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which confirmed there was no active complaint filed by the applicant as of December 31, 2008.

The Tribunal found that there was no active complaint that could be continued within the meaning of section 53 of the Code, and therefore the application was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to add three individuals as personal respondents to a transitional human rights application and the respondents sought production of documents relating to damages.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the personal respondents because they had not been provided with notice of the request and due to the significant passage of time since the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal also bifurcated the proceeding to address liability separately from remedy, deferring the respondents' request for production of documents relating to damages.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following a cancer diagnosis.

Shortly after filing, the applicant died, and his wife filed a transitional application on behalf of his estate.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application, arguing that human rights claims are personal and abate upon death.

The Tribunal distinguished claims against private actors under the Code from Charter claims regarding government services, finding that a claim for employment discrimination is akin to a breach of contract action and does not abate upon death.

The Tribunal also held that a human rights application is a statutory claim, not a common law action, and is therefore not extinguished by the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona.

The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to determine barriers to his return to work as a teacher.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to embark on an inquiry before the preliminary issue of whether the application had been settled or otherwise appropriately dealt with was determined.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant, who lived in subsidized housing, had his rent subsidy revoked and was subsequently evicted after failing to provide updated income information requested by the respondent.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, concluding that the respondent's actions were solely due to the applicant's failure to comply with repeated requests for income information and his subsequent failure to pay market rent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against him in the design and implementation of his Labour Market Re-entry Program and related benefits.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the contents and reasons of WSIB decisions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the term 'services' in section 1 of the Human Rights Code does not include the content and reasons of a WSIB claims adjudicator decision determining entitlement to benefits.

The application was dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that such allegations must be raised within the WSIB appeals system.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding his termination, the respondent's failure to rehire him, and the adequacy of his reference letter.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed two full and final releases in exchange for severance and an additional lump sum payment.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application seeking the position of Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Automotive Manufacturing, which had been awarded to Ron Sky.

Mr. Sky filed a Request to Intervene in the proceeding.

As the applicant's requested remedy would directly affect Mr. Sky, and neither the applicant nor the respondents objected, the Tribunal granted Mr. Sky intervenor status.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and union alleging harassment and discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the scope of the application against the union, removing allegations that did not form part of the original subject matter.

The Tribunal also removed several personal respondents from the union application, finding the union remained vicariously liable.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled on the applicant's extensive production requests, limiting production to relevant, non-privileged communications within the applicable timeframe, and bifurcated the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Labour Relations Board, its Vice-chair, and its Registrar discriminated against him on the basis of his Aboriginal status when dismissing his reprisal application.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicative process of a quasi-judicial tribunal does not constitute a service under the Human Rights Code and is protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant, a former Table Games Supervisor of Vietnamese descent, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race when it disciplined him, gave him a poor performance review, and subsequently terminated his employment during a company restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the discipline was imposed for a serious breach of internal procedures and that a non-Asian supervisor received harsher discipline for the same incident.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontradicted evidence that the applicant was selected for termination based solely on his low performance ratings, not his race.

The application was dismissed.

The personal respondent, Andrea Seepersaud, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed from the human rights application.

She argued that as she was acting in the course of her employment as Executive Director, she could not be named as a respondent under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that individual employees can be held personally liable under section 9 of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct was a central issue in the proceeding and that there was no institutional employer available to respond to the allegations, as the corporate respondent had closed.

The respondents raised preliminary objections to a transitional human rights application, arguing it was not completed before the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline and should alternatively be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its technical rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application, despite failing to deliver the proper form to the respondents at that time.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the section 45.1 and abuse of process arguments, and ordered the applicant to file written submissions or face dismissal of the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal set a schedule for submissions, but the applicant failed to file them or communicate with the Tribunal after her counsel withdrew.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss for abandonment, giving the applicant 14 days to respond.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents provided most of the requested particulars but objected to providing the start and end dates of various programs, arguing the information was marginally relevant and difficult to produce.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the requested dates were not arguably relevant at this stage, and declined to order further particulars.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination application.

She argued that there was new evidence from five witnesses and cited other factors, including medication impairment and inadequate preparation by her counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no explanation for why the witnesses could not have been called earlier and concluding that the other factors did not justify reconsideration.