Kaye Joachim

The applicant, a 49-year-old municipal employee with 26 years of service, alleged age discrimination when a younger candidate was selected over him for an Arena Manager position.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation that the successful candidate was more qualified due to recent management courses and better interview performance.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's emphasis on educational qualifications was not a pretext for age discrimination and dismissed the application.

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

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application as out of time, narrow its scope, and remove the personal respondent.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to deem the application filed before the statutory deadline despite a missing signature.

However, the Tribunal narrowed the scope of the application, excluding allegations prior to April 2006 due to delay and substantial prejudice, and excluding post-complaint allegations.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the age discrimination claim at a preliminary stage and refused to remove the personal respondent, finding her involvement necessary given the allegations of deliberate exclusion.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application.

The request was filed over four months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit set by Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, with no explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal denied the request on the basis of untimeliness.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration, as the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and provided no new evidence or arguments of public importance.

The applicant requested production of documents and that his transitional section 53(5) application be processed together with a newly filed section 34 application.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding that the respondents' investigation documents were privileged, other relevant documents had already been produced, and the remaining requested documents did not exist.

The Tribunal also declined to process the applications together, as it would not be fair, just, and expeditious given that the transitional application was scheduled for a hearing in one week.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the applicant was not directly employed by them.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employment relationship between the applicant, the individual respondent, and the corporate respondent was not clear at this stage.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to file its original response and provide contact information for the individual respondent, whose mail had been returned unopened.

The applicant requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to appoint an investigator to review documents over which the respondents claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a Tribunal ordered inquiry is not a substitute for the usual production process and that section 5.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act prohibits the Tribunal from ordering the disclosure of privileged information.

The applicant filed two human rights applications and subsequently filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of documents prior to a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that its Rules contemplate mediation occurring prior to document exchange, and that document production issues can be addressed during case management if mediation fails.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of the complete contents of her personnel, contract, and human rights files.

The respondents asserted they had already produced the contract file, investigation report, and harassment file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it unclear what else the applicant was seeking, and directed her to specify any missing documents in sufficient detail.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal accept her late-filed statement of facts, remedy, documents, and will-say statements, submitted beyond the deadlines.

The applicant's former unlicensed representative withdrew in November 2009, and the applicant retained a new representative in February 2010.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment for the applicant but decided it would be fair to accept the late evidence.

However, to ensure fairness to the self-represented respondents, the Tribunal directed the respondents to advise if they required an adjournment to respond to the late material.

The applicant, an Aboriginal Catholic, alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of religion and disability.

She claimed she was unfairly criticized and terminated because of her religion, and that the employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs following a medical leave.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions were motivated by the applicant's religion or disability.

The evidence showed the applicant was terminated due to perceived misconduct and interpersonal issues.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a response, and the Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents' counsel subsequently explained that the respondents were unrepresented during the transition and mistakenly believed the response filed with the Commission was before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation, set aside the previous interim decision, and permitted the respondents to participate in the proceedings.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the applications filed by several church board members, arguing they disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicants alleged they witnessed the discriminatory treatment and arrest of their pastor by the respondent police officers, heard racially discriminatory remarks, and that their church was subsequently targeted.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the allegations, if true, could establish a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request for particulars of the remedies sought.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking extensive document production.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature because the deadline for production had not yet passed and the applicant failed to establish a nexus for some requests.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant appeared to be raising allegations outside its jurisdiction and directed the parties to provide submissions on the proper scope of the application.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and need for accommodation (seated breaks).

The respondents maintained she was terminated for cause due to chronic tardiness and a serious breach of store policy (leaving a sales associate alone in the store), following a prior final written warning for falsifying time records.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the termination was related to her pregnancy or accommodation request, which had been promptly granted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 51-year-old Russian-trained mathematics teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, ethnic origin, and place of origin after failing to obtain an interview or placement on the occasional teaching list with the Toronto District School Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the application was dismissed because the respondents provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation: the school board preferred candidates certified to teach in two subject areas, whereas the applicant was only certified to teach mathematics.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to employment after reporting a workplace injury.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce sales documents to test its defence that the applicant was laid off for lack of work.

The respondent advised that producing the 6000 to 9000 documents would be unduly costly, and the applicant refused to review them in person or pay for photocopying.

The Tribunal revised its order, relieving the respondent from producing the sales documents and instead ordering the production of its 2005, 2006, and 2007 corporate tax returns.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing requests for document production and the removal of personal respondents.

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

Applying the standard of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical and insurance records.

Applying the Persaud principles, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the style of cause, finding no compelling reason to retain them as the corporate respondent's vicarious liability and capacity to provide a remedy were not in dispute.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by a grievance settlement.

The applicant had been terminated and his union signed minutes of settlement with the employer, but the applicant refused to sign them and did not accept the negotiated funds.

The Tribunal held that a union-employer settlement over the objection of the applicant does not mean the disputed termination was appropriately dealt with within the meaning of s. 45.1.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a Response or other required documents, explaining that the failure was due to inadvertence and the closure of the plant where the applicant worked.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal found it would not be fair or expeditious to proceed with the hearing as scheduled, granted the adjournment, and directed the respondent to file its materials within 30 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, family status, and marital status, as well as reprisal, regarding her failure to obtain teaching positions.

The Tribunal ruled that allegations prior to 2006 had already been dealt with or were out of time.

After hearing evidence on the remaining 2006-2007 allegations, the applicant sought to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal refused the withdrawal and dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence that the applicant's failure to obtain positions was related to her age, marital or family status, or previous human rights complaints.