Kaye Joachim

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add a personal respondent, compel witnesses to testify, and order the production of documents and information regarding the racial composition of the workplace.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding no basis to add the personal respondent, noting the applicant could issue summonses for witnesses, and concluding the respondent had already provided the requested documents and information.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's transitional human rights application for being filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had submitted an incomplete application form by fax on June 29, 2009, missing the respondent's name and the original complaint.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the technical filing requirements, finding that the respondent suffered no prejudice as they had been aware of the complaint since 2005.

The Tribunal concluded the application was made by the statutory deadline and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to offer her employment after she recovered from a work-related injury.

The respondent sought early dismissal due to technical deficiencies, or alternatively, deferral pending a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal waived the technical deficiencies but deferred the application, finding that the issues before the WSIAT regarding the obligation to re-employ were sufficiently similar to warrant deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

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

The application was sent to the Tribunal by registered mail on June 22, 2009, but due to an unusually long transmission time by Canada Post, it was not received until July 3, 2009, missing the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal waived its strict receipt rule and applied the five-day deemed delivery rule for mailed documents.

The Tribunal deemed the application filed by June 27, 2009, and accepted it for processing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that refused his request to amend his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the refusal to amend the application was not a final decision and therefore not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of two personal respondents named in the human rights complaint.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the conduct of the personal respondents and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, the Tribunal removed them as personal respondents and amended the style of cause.

The applicants, former employees of the respondent who were terminated during a downsizing, requested extensive production of documents relating to their allegations of discrimination based on age, disability, sex, family status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the requests for production at this stage, noting the lack of explanation for arguable relevance and the potential difficulty in locating old documents.

The Tribunal directed that the arguable relevance and need for further documents be explored during the cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses at the hearing, and ordered the respondent to preserve any potentially relevant documents.

The respondents requested an adjournment and dismissal of the human rights application without a hearing, arguing that the settlement of a related application against the applicant's employer resolved the issues, and that the allegations related to a failure in the duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the matters are best addressed at the scheduled hearing and that the reasons for the request did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his clinical psychologist was unavailable, and sought an extension to file a statement of additional facts and remedy.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances and noting the applicant failed to explain why the oral evidence was essential.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the late filing of the statement of facts, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the hearing date was over a month away.

The respondents requested to set aside an earlier interim decision that deemed them to have accepted the applicant's facts due to their failure to file a Response.

The Tribunal found that the respondents provided a reasonable explanation for their failure to respond and submitted a serious response to the allegations.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal set aside the earlier decision and accepted the late Response.

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because a prior interim decision directed the applicant to clarify the scope of the application, which the respondents had requested.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, noting that the Tribunal routinely issues directions on its own initiative to ensure a fair and expeditious process, as authorized by the Human Rights Code and the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a transitional application and a subsequent section 34 application under the Human Rights Code against the respondents.

On agreement of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the transitional application to join it with the section 34 application, as both related to an ongoing series of events.

The parties also agreed to enter into mediation to resolve both applications.

The applicant sought disclosure of documents relating to other candidates in four employment competitions.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal determined the documents were arguably relevant.

The respondents withheld the documents, believing a Tribunal order was required.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately disclose the relevant documents regarding candidates who advanced to the interview or assessment stages.

The applicant, an English-speaking technical support professional, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin and ancestry because bilingual (French-English) employees received a higher starting wage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that language is not a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The wage premium was paid to attract candidates with a specific skill set (French fluency) required for the work, and the applicant's lack of fluency was not inextricably linked to her place of origin or ancestry.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought production of the entirety of four job competition files related to positions for which he was unsuccessful.

The respondents argued the request was overly broad and that they had already produced the arguably relevant portions.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and found that the respondents had provided the relevant documents for three of the positions.

For the fourth position, where no candidate passed, the Tribunal ordered the production of the assessment tests of the three candidates who reached the interview stage.

In an interim decision regarding an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's refusal to provide copies of its 2005, 2006, and 2007 corporate tax returns to the applicant unless the applicant paid for photocopying.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to immediately provide the copies, noting that parties are generally expected to bear the cost of providing copies of arguably relevant documents to other parties and the Tribunal.

The respondents requested an order to remove the personal respondents from the proceeding and sought other case management directions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the personal respondents, finding that the allegations against them could potentially give rise to personal liability and remedial orders.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file a statement of additional facts to clarify the relevance of voluminous materials submitted, and set a deadline for submissions on whether the proceeding should be deferred pending an academic misconduct appeal.

The applicant, a high school student with learning disabilities, alleged that the school board failed to accommodate his special needs and discriminated against him by imposing two suspensions without properly accounting for his disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the school board had implemented appropriate accommodations, including an Individual Education Plan, and had properly considered the applicant's special needs during the investigation and discipline process for both suspensions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend her complaint to include allegations that the discrimination led to her resignation and that the personal respondent interfered with a new job offer, finding these did not arise from the original complaint.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the production of dismissal letters of three former employees, as they were not arguably relevant to the issues in the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of citizenship, ethnic origin, and other grounds, culminating in his termination in 2004.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis of delay, prior settlement, and that the substance was dealt with in a prior arbitration.

The Tribunal found that raising the 2003 discipline was an abuse of process due to a prior settlement, and that failing to raise the discrimination allegations during the arbitration and waiting three years to file the application constituted an abuse of process and a delay not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.