Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicants, a married couple, were long-term employees of the respondent.

The wife suffered a workplace fall and experienced mental health issues, leading to a WSIB claim and unusual workplace behaviour.

The respondent laid off both applicants earlier than planned and subsequently failed to recall them after they alleged human rights violations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the wife's mental disability and that her disability and WSIB claim were factors in her early lay-off.

The Tribunal also found that the husband was laid off due to his marital status.

Furthermore, the respondent's refusal to recall the applicants constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded damages for lost wages and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that allowed the applicant's human rights application.

The respondents argued that the decision conflicted with established law, that public interest outweighed finality, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents failed to identify any conflict with Tribunal jurisprudence, failed to establish factors outweighing the public interest in finality, and provided vague allegations that did not meet the test for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal committed fundamental errors of law and misinterpreted key facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant sought to introduce a new medical note and argued public policy concerns regarding medical cannabis.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new medical evidence was not determinative and could have been obtained earlier, and that the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence or involve a matter of general public importance.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination requested an order to close the hearing proceedings and proceed with written closing submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that to ensure a fair hearing without prejudice to the applicant, the respondent should be allowed to recall a witness to provide critical evidence regarding interactions with the applicant.

The hearing was ordered to continue for one additional day.

The applicant, a bookkeeper, alleged that the personal respondent, the owner of the corporate respondent, subjected her to a poisoned work environment through ongoing inappropriate touching, sexualized jokes, and derogatory comments.

She further alleged that she was summarily dismissed as a reprisal after she assertively objected to his conduct.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the personal respondent's behaviour created a poisoned work environment contrary to section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's dismissal was a reprisal for attempting to enforce her Code rights, contrary to section 8.

The respondents were ordered to pay $30,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the personal respondent was ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by another tenant and their guest, which the respondent landlord failed to address.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had concurrent jurisdiction to apply the Code and had already awarded the applicant a rent abatement and costs for the same underlying facts.

The application was dismissed as the substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than three years after the alleged incidents of discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police and the City of Orillia.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to disability, a series of incidents, and the late discoverability of damages.

The Tribunal found no medical evidence that the applicant was so debilitated as to be prevented from pursuing his rights, rejected the series of incidents argument, and held that the discoverability of damages is not a recognized good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, including disciplinary actions for absenteeism dating back to 2008.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary allegations ending in May 2013 were not part of a series of incidents with later allegations from 2015.

The applicant's explanation that he delayed filing due to fear of reprisal was not accepted as a good faith explanation for the delay.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondent failed to deliver a settlement package by the agreed date.

The respondent had mistakenly sent the package to the wrong address but promptly re-sent it upon learning of the error, resulting in a two-month delay.

The Tribunal found the delay constituted a breach of the settlement but concluded it was a de minimis breach that did not warrant monetary compensation, as the applicant provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant relied on Rules 26.5(c) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated the allegations from his original application and failed to provide any meaningful submissions relevant to the grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events prior to the applicant's lay-off were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegation, that the respondent objected to the applicant seeking a WSIB specialist appointment, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the objection to the applicant's disability.

The applicant, an adult with a severe intellectual disability, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the residential services provided by the respondent agency and the oversight by the respondent Ministry.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were essentially complaints about the quality of care and disagreements over the nature of support, which do not constitute Code-related discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success against the Ministry for failing to intervene, as there is no Code-related obligation for the Ministry to oversee the agency's accommodation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant argued that there was a failure to accommodate her, but provided no meaningful submissions addressing the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal found no basis to exercise its discretion to reconsider the earlier decision and dismissed the request.

The applicant alleged that the respondents' transit fare structure, which provides discounts based on age but not for low-income adults between 20 and 64, discriminated against her on the basis of age.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that persons between 20 and 64 do not constitute an identifiable group that has experienced historic disadvantage relative to seniors or youth, and that providing discounted transit rates to those over 65 and under 20 does not perpetuate prejudice or disadvantage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that her PTSD prevented her from filing on time and that she was unaware of her legal rights.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue her rights and that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary/preliminary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference.

After waiting the customary 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by a shopping mall security guard who told him to stop taking pictures, threatened him with arrest, and issued a 24-hour trespass notice.

The applicant claimed he was targeted because of his Ukrainian accent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the security guard's actions or the mall management's response to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, and the reprisal claim lacked evidence of an intention to retaliate for claiming Code rights.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent college approximately six and a half years after his expulsion from a veterinary technician program.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that his mental health disability prevented him from filing earlier and that he was unaware of the process.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue his legal rights during the limitation period, and that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming she was evicted for smoking medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had already adjudicated the eviction and the human rights allegations, concluding the eviction was for a no-fault reason and the landlord fulfilled the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal dismissed the application.