Kaye Joachim

The respondent requested production of documents, an adjournment, and clarification of the scope of the application.

The Tribunal ruled that allegations post-dating the original complaint do not form part of the application.

The applicant was ordered to produce income tax records, and a non-party was ordered to produce employment documents.

The request for an adjournment was denied, with the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services regarding the intercountry adoption of his twin daughters from India.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry's actions, which involved assessing compliance with the Intercountry Adoption Act and issuing letters to federal immigration authorities, did not constitute differential treatment based on family status.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that he was recovering from dental surgery.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide medical confirmation of his inability to participate.

The applicant provided confirmation that the surgery occurred but no evidence of incapacity to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances or health-related reason to adjourn.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of three personal respondents from the human rights application.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed two of the personal respondents because the corporate respondent accepted liability for their conduct and could provide a remedy.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the principal as a personal respondent at this stage, given specific allegations that his conduct was motivated by race.

The applicant alleged that his employment as a car sales representative was terminated because of his disability, specifically a stroke he claimed to have suffered.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to the applicant's insubordination and failure to follow company policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical condition played no role in the termination, noting that the employer had a history of accommodating other employees with disabilities and that the applicant had not requested any accommodation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response or participate in the proceedings, having previously advised that the location where the applicant was employed was closing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to advise within five days whether the office remains in operation, whether it intends to participate, and why no Response was filed, noting the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 3.2.

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

The Tribunal granted a consent request to add three individual respondents as parties and to amend the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, transitioning a complaint originally filed with the Commission.

The applicant sought to amend the application to increase the requested general damages and add damages for breach of the right to be free from discrimination.

The respondents disputed the request.

The Tribunal held that while amendments altering the subject matter of the original complaint are not permitted, altering the requested remedy is allowed.

The Transitional Rules specifically contemplate that parties may alter the remedy requested after the application is filed without needing a formal request to amend.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status and creed after she was not selected for an interview for a Youth Ministries Coordinator position at the respondent church.

The applicant believed her life circumstances, specifically living with a man while separated from her husband, influenced the hiring committee.

The Tribunal found that the hiring committee members were either unaware of her circumstances or did not consider them, and that the selected candidates were objectively more qualified due to their recent work with youth at the church.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that a Toronto Transit Commission bus driver discriminated against him based on race and colour by refusing a valid transfer.

Following the disclosure of the driver's name, the applicant brought a request to add the driver, Mark Gray, as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors for adding a party and found that the allegations of direct, differential treatment based on race constituted compelling circumstances to add the driver personally.

The request was granted.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the human rights application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to confirm in writing whether he wished to pursue the application.

The applicant did not respond, though his father attempted to act as his litigation guardian.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not wish to continue the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance after his rent subsidy was revoked and he was evicted.

The respondents requested early dismissal, removal of personal respondents, and clarification of the scope of the application.

The Tribunal narrowed the scope of the application to the specific allegations of discrimination, refused to dismiss the application early, and removed the personal respondents as there were no factual allegations against them.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to health issues arising from the pregnancy of a named respondent.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's ill health constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its scheduling policies.

The hearing was adjourned to alternative dates in June 2010.

The Tribunal considered a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, a former site director, from the application.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal noted that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Furthermore, the original complaint contained no factual allegations involving the personal respondent.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against him, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent from the style of cause.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and creed, as well as reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the applicant's workplace complaints to a prohibited ground.

A single denial of religious leave was justified by insufficient notice.

The Tribunal applied section 45.1 of the Code to rely on an Employment Standards Officer's finding that the applicant was terminated for misconduct, and found no evidence that the termination was a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be barred or deferred because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the application was not barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action did not allege any Code-protected grounds or seek a Code remedy.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the civil action was stayed and the potential for duplicative proceedings was remote.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to add new respondents and amend his human rights complaint to include post-complaint allegations of a fresh refusal to accommodate and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Commission had not formally amended the original 2005 complaint, and adding the new allegations would significantly alter the scope of the proceedings.

The applicant was advised he could file a fresh application for the new allegations.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of two personal respondents, Mike Swanton and Jim Stevenson, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no dispute that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment, no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability, and no specific remedy sought against the individuals.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and excessive use of force by police officers.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, as the police disciplinary hearing would address some of the factual matters raised in the application.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents refused to permit him to record a town council meeting as an accommodation for his hearing disability.

The respondents argued the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because a prior civil action between the parties had been settled and a release signed.

The Tribunal found that the prior civil pleadings did not raise the issue of recording council meetings, and the release did not specifically mention the human rights complaint.

The request to bar the application was dismissed.