Kaye Joachim

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.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to grant him an adjournment to obtain documents ordered produced in an interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, noting that the respondents had complied with the production order because the requested performance appraisals and notes did not exist, and mere disagreement with production rulings is not a basis for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of her application.

The request was filed more than 30 days after the interim decision, and the applicant offered no explanation for the delay other than experiencing depression.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under the Rules of Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only considered for final decisions, not interim ones.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to racial bias.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars, production, and the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal bifurcated the hearing to address liability before remedy, rendering the request for remedy particulars moot.

The Tribunal declined to order further particulars on liability, noting the applicant had already provided them.

The Tribunal also refused to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature given her direct involvement in the termination decision.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued jurisdictional confusion, application of the wrong legal test, omission of evidence, and procedural unfairness.

The Tribunal found no error in its application of the duty to accommodate, noted that the new evidence was not determinative, and confirmed that the decision was not released to the public before being sent to the parties.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for his transitional applications under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code in order to seek consolidation with a newly filed section 34 application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to allow the consolidation request to be addressed in the section 34 stream.

The Tribunal also deferred a request by the respondent union to reconsider a prior ruling allowing a witness to testify by telephone.

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent daycare refused her admission because of her association with her brother, who has a disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal provided procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal ruled it would not hear evidence solely related to whether the brother experienced discrimination, as his separate application had already been dismissed for delay.

To ensure a fair, just, and expeditious process, the Tribunal directed the respondents to present their evidence first regarding why the applicant was removed from the waitlist, followed by the applicant's evidence.

The applicant requested to consolidate a new section 34 application with existing transitional section 53(5) applications and filed a statement of additional facts including post-March 2008 allegations.

The respondents requested to strike the post-March 2008 allegations.

The Tribunal denied the consolidation request, finding it would be unfair to the respondents given the impending hearing date, and struck the post-March 2008 allegations from the statement of additional facts.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to have a witness testify by telephone.

The applicant's mother requested a reconsideration of an interim decision which determined she lacked the authority to act as litigation guardian for the applicant, and that only the Public Guardian and Trustee had such authority.

The Public Guardian and Trustee subsequently withdrew the applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that mere disagreement with the decision is not a basis for reconsideration and no compelling or extraordinary circumstances were presented.

In an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, a preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on a prior union settlement.

A summonsed physician witness requested to be excused, noting his evidence would not be helpful to the preliminary issue and attending would require cancelling a full day of appointments.

The Tribunal found the physician's evidence was not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue and stayed the summons.

Noting the applicant had identified ten physician witnesses, the Tribunal stayed all summonses to minimize undue hardship, pending further direction at the preliminary hearing.

The applicant, who is unable to drive due to a disability, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent municipality's inter-municipal transit services were insufficient for her self-employment needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case to the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as a party, finding no facts alleged against the Ministry and noting that adding them at this late stage would cause undue delay.

The Tribunal also clarified that the applicant did not need to formally amend her complaint to argue constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant alleged she did not receive notice of the hearing, but the Tribunal found she had previously confirmed her availability and mailing address.

As the applicant failed to provide any supporting submissions or evidence for her request, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination by police services on the basis of race, colour, family status, and disability, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing bifurcation and production.

The Tribunal bifurcated the hearing to separate the merits from the remedy.

The respondents' requests for particulars regarding damages and the applicant's disability were denied at this stage.

However, the applicant was ordered to produce documentation or photographs identifying the make and model of the electric scooter he was using during the incident, as its classification as a motor vehicle was in dispute.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him on the basis of disability by coercing him to sign a return-to-work mediation agreement and by issuing discriminatory decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits and a Labour Market Re-entry Program.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the alleged acts do not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held 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 or a mediated agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy after being laid off shortly after disclosing her pregnancy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against two corporate respondents because the applicant failed to establish they were her employer.

The application against a third corporate respondent was dismissed as abandoned because the applicant took no steps to lift a bankruptcy stay of proceedings.

The application against the personal respondent was dismissed as there was no evidence she was involved in the termination decision.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging the respondent daycare failed to accommodate her son's disability-related behavioural issues, resulting in his withdrawal from the daycare, and subsequently denied her daughter admission due to association with her brother.

The Tribunal held an interim hearing to determine if the son's application was timely.

The Tribunal found the last incident occurred when the son was withdrawn in November 2006, but the complaint was not filed until January 2008, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no good faith reason for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the son's application as out of time, while allowing the daughter's application to proceed.

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

The applicant's counsel mistakenly delivered the application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission instead of the Tribunal by the deadline.

The Tribunal received the application from the Commission on July 2, 2009.

The Tribunal held that, applying a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, the application was 'made' to the Tribunal when it was delivered to the Commission in error, and directed the respondents to file a response.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and harassment during his six-month employment.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not provide a valid explanation for his absence, which the Tribunal found to be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal proceeded to hear the respondents' evidence, which straightforwardly denied the allegations and was corroborated by coworker statements.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence, found the applicant's allegations unsubstantiated, and dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal waited 45 minutes and confirmed the applicant had notice of the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant and any evidence to support the allegations, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to deliver a human rights application to the personal respondents after the institutional respondent closed.

While one respondent was successfully served, the other allegedly evaded service, with the police returning registered mail to the applicant.

The Tribunal found the applicant made all reasonable efforts to deliver the material and that the respondent was deliberately refusing to receive it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to send the application by courier and deemed it received within five days.