Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of Employee Travel Allowance Expense Reports and full home addresses for named employees of the respondent.

The applicant alleged she was denied paid mileage while similarly situated employees were paid.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the travel allowance reports, finding them arguably relevant to the discrimination claim.

The request for home addresses was denied as their relevance was unclear.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration and subsequent judicial review.

The respondents requested that if re-activated, the Tribunal consider dismissing the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to determine whether the grievance proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant, a medical doctor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, sex, family status, and marital status.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding hiring processes in 2009 and 2010 were out of time and removed them from the application.

However, the remaining allegations were found to constitute a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed the applicant to file an amended application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on reprisal, claiming the respondent denied him free legal services and threatened to call the police.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

Finding it plain and obvious that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, who identifies as Iranian, hired the respondent, who identifies as an Iranian Kurd, to perform home renovations.

The applicant alleged that the respondent provided sub-standard work and abandoned the project because of the applicant's Iranian identity, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent's actions were motivated by the applicant's identity.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter was a purely contractual commercial disagreement exacerbated by the lack of a written agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, raising the same issues of bullying, death threats, and termination that he had previously raised in an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The ESA complaint had been resolved through a settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the settlement of the ESA complaint constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and allowing it to proceed would undermine the finality of litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against the Toronto Argonauts Football Club.

The applicant claimed that the respondent's support for the White Ribbon Campaign discriminated against men.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the sex discrimination claim, finding no reasonable prospect of success as supporting a charitable cause to reduce violence against women does not constitute discrimination against men.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, as the applicant alleged the respondent threatened to cancel his season tickets after he complained.

The applicant, a former bookkeeper and manager at a dental practice, alleged that her employer sexually harassed her on multiple occasions and terminated her employment because she refused his sexual advances.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an extremely hostile and evasive witness who attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding her damages claim.

Conversely, the respondent was found to be forthright and credible.

Due to the lack of independent evidence and the applicant's poor credibility, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations of sexual harassment and discriminatory termination.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel civil action filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Statement of Claim did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies for such infringements.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration related to the same facts.

The applicant opposed the deferral, while the respondent supported it.

The Tribunal found a clear overlap in the factual issues, specifically the termination of the applicant's employment, and noted that the grievance procedure was well advanced.

To avoid duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

Prior to the application, the respondent initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and obtained an Initial Order staying all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether he intends to pursue the application and to provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay, including whether he has sought leave of the Superior Court to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts based on place of origin and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

After receiving the applicant's written submissions alleging continuing harassment, the Tribunal determined it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time or lacked good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to determine the issue of delay.

The respondent requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability during a professional engineering licensing interview.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the licensing process was unlikely to result in conflicting decisions, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a professional license.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds under the Human Rights Code against numerous respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant that still failed to identify any discriminatory acts, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

Having received no communication or materials from the applicant by the specified deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a six-day delay in receiving a settlement payment was a de minimis breach of the minutes of settlement, for which no remedy was awarded.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely disagreed with the adjudicator's conclusion and failed to demonstrate a clear departure from settled legal rules or any compelling circumstances to justify reconsideration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

She argued she did not receive the notice of hearing sent by regular mail.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the notice was properly sent to the mailing address provided by the applicant and she failed to establish that she did not receive it through no fault of her own.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding his treatment at a hospital.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the application relied on the same facts and sought similar remedies.

As section 34(11) is a mandatory bar against duplicate proceedings, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated during his probationary period because of his colour.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's assertion that his colour was a factor in his termination was mere speculation, as he could point to no evidence linking his termination to his colour.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.