Kaye Joachim

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

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions, no specific remedy was sought against them, and the corporate respondent could provide any necessary remedy.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, the Tribunal ordered their removal as personal respondents.

The applicant, a legal aid clinic, filed a human rights complaint alleging that Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) discriminated against it on the basis of race in the manner it conducted an investigation into alleged financial irregularities.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at the outset, arguing that the substance had been dealt with in a prior judicial review application and that LAO's oversight functions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the prior proceedings did not appropriately deal with the substance of the complaint and that LAO's oversight and investigation of clinics do constitute a service within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding historical allegations and the personal respondents.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to include allegations regarding job competitions in November 2006 and April 2007.

The Tribunal permitted the addition of the November 2006 allegations, finding they were part of the subject matter of the original complaint before the Commission.

However, the Tribunal struck the April 2007 allegations because they were raised more than one year after the incident and the applicant failed to provide an explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Code.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference shortly after retaining counsel, citing the need for preparation time and language barriers.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents had known of the hearing date for five months, had failed to comply with previous Tribunal deadlines and disclosure orders, and had waited until the last minute to retain counsel.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination by her employer dating back to 1994, including failure to hire her for tool and die positions and subsequent reprisals.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and because the matters were dealt with in another proceeding under section 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events prior to November 2004 due to delay, finding no good faith reason for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations from November 2004 onwards to proceed, finding the delay was incurred in good faith while the applicant awaited the outcome of a union grievance, and the respondents did not establish substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the remaining allegations under section 45.1, finding that a union's withdrawal of a grievance and an internal joint committee decision did not mean the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment after reporting a workplace injury.

The respondent claimed the applicant was laid off due to a lack of work.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of the respondent's financial records and information regarding temporary and new workers to challenge the lack of work defence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information relating to the hiring of temporary and new employees in 2006, as well as documentation of orders placed and filled between 2005 and 2007, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that a key witness would be on vacation and the applicant had not filed a statement of additional facts or documents.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent had known of the hearing date for months and should have ensured witness availability.

The reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging she was refused admission to the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law because she was from Russia.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant merely reiterated arguments made at the initial hearing and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant, a Black man from Nigeria, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin, and took reprisal actions against him for filing a human rights complaint.

He claimed that City officials made racist comments and failed to hire him for numerous positions.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the racist comments to be entirely not credible.

The Tribunal also found that the City's actions in contacting the police and the applicant's employer were based on legitimate safety concerns arising from the applicant's behaviour, not reprisal.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not hired because his job applications were poorly drafted, contained errors and inconsistencies, and failed to demonstrate the required qualifications.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, who is not fluent in French, brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to compel the respondents to communicate with him and the Tribunal in English.

The respondents asserted their right under the French Language Services Act to communicate in French.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents are entitled to exercise their statutory right to correspond in French, and that the Tribunal's practice of accepting written communications in the language received while providing translation services during mediation and hearings complies with its obligations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his transitional application on the basis that he had not filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

The applicant argued that the Commission had erred in his original complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant misapprehended the basis for the dismissal and failed to raise any grounds to reconsider the finding that he had not filed a complaint prior to the statutory deadline.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the estate of a deceased applicant may continue to pursue an application under the Human Rights Code.

As a decision on this significant issue was pending, the Tribunal cancelled the upcoming hearing and filing deadlines.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant's spouse to provide documentary evidence confirming his authority to act on behalf of the estate.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in his lay-off due to absences required for migraines.

He brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to add John Thomas Cartage Limited as a respondent and to remove ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc. and a personal respondent.

The Tribunal added Thomas Cartage as a respondent because facts were alleged that could lead to a finding of a Code breach and no prejudice was asserted.

The Tribunal declined to remove Dofasco given the assertion that they were co-employers.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent because Dofasco accepted liability for his conduct and there was no compelling reason to continue against him personally.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent made false statements to a WSIB claims investigator, which allegedly resulted in the denial of his WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the focus of the original complaint regarding workplace harassment and termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine entitlement to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by email at 11:07 p.m. on the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline, but failed to attach the original complaint.

The respondents argued the application was barred due to the missing attachment and filing after 5:00 p.m.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its procedural rules, finding that the application was made prior to the statutory deadline because sufficient material was filed to indicate an intention to make an application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed a civil action based on the same factual situation, which could give rise to a remedy for discrimination, even though a breach of the Code was not specifically pleaded.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) is intended to preclude duplicate proceedings and dismissed the reconsideration request.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision refusing to stay its liability and remedies decisions pending judicial review.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration because the respondents' submissions had been omitted from the original consideration due to an administrative error.

However, upon reviewing the submissions, the adjudicator found no irreparable harm and concluded the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The request for a stay was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, and reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a severance package.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found that the applicant exercised an informed and reasoned choice when signing the release, with no evidence of severe financial pressure or duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response despite being notified by the Tribunal of the consequences.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their right to participate.

A half-day hearing was scheduled to determine the final ruling based on the uncontradicted evidence.

The applicant alleged that his WSIB claims manager sexually solicited him and, upon his refusal, reprised against him by unfairly administering his benefits claim.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence contradictory and preferred the respondents' evidence, concluding that no sexual solicitation occurred.

The Tribunal also noted that the administration of WSIB benefits falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The application was dismissed.