Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay settlement monies on time.

The respondents mailed the cheques two days before the due date, but they were received six days late due to a holiday weekend.

The Tribunal found a contravention occurred but deemed the breach de minimis.

Despite a clause in the settlement agreement stipulating $5,000 in damages for late payment, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code and declined to order a remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination from employment.

The applicant had previously grieved his termination through his union, resulting in a final settlement where he received compensation in exchange for a full release of all outstanding issues.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the same factual issues already resolved in the grievance settlement.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of various documents, including tax returns, proof of loss of benefits, spousal support documents, and medical records.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the test for disclosure is arguable relevance and the applicant did not object to the production.

The respondent in an Application for Contravention of Settlement requested an order for the production of an audio recording of his interview by the Professional Standards Unit.

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the recording, finding it met the threshold of arguable relevance regarding the timeliness of the application and the respondent's state of mind, and noting the applicant's lack of objection.

The applicant brought an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondent breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a human rights application.

The settlement included a broad release of all claims arising from employment.

However, the respondent failed to withdraw a pending application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which subsequently awarded him termination pay and damages for reprisal.

The Tribunal found the settlement language clear and unambiguous, concluding the respondent breached the agreement by not withdrawing the OLRB application.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the amount awarded by the OLRB, plus $1,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because some of his witnesses would be out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, which the Tribunal denied as premature given that her conduct was a central issue.

The applicant also requested production of documents, which the Tribunal denied as overly broad and a fishing expedition.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Hearing and Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant did not provide the required documents, witness list, or witness statements by the specified deadlines, nor did he communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that new evidence would be available in the future and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that anticipated future evidence does not constitute new facts or evidence under Rule 26.5(a), and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent co-operative contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to offer her an internal transfer to a specified unit when it became available.

The Tribunal reviewed the respondent's vacancy records and found that none of the specified units had become available since the execution of the settlement.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had been misinformed and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was not hired for four school board positions in 2011 and 2013.

The respondent requested that the 2011 allegations be dismissed for delay and that the entire application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2011 allegations, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit without a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the 2013 allegations to proceed, concluding that the applicant's claims regarding her qualifications and age relative to the successful candidates could potentially establish a link to discrimination.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability (diabetes) when a case manager denied him benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is not protected by adjudicative immunity, that the application falls within its jurisdiction because it alleges discrimination under the Code, and that the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her retirement residence failed to accommodate her gluten intolerance and harassed her when she complained.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application during an eviction proceeding for rent arrears.

The Tribunal found that the LTB had addressed the same facts and issues, concluding that the landlord had taken reasonable measures to accommodate the applicant and that there was no basis for the harassment allegations.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed against one of the respondents for delay.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former police constable, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming the respondent imposed conditions that disadvantaged her compared to men and led to her resignation.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence or particulars to support her belief that her sex was a factor in the respondent's treatment of her.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

The applicant sought orders to define issues, address document admissibility, vary a prior production order, compel further production regarding systemic racism, and amend the style of cause.

The Tribunal denied the request to vary the prior production order and refused further production, noting the application was not framed as a systemic challenge.

The remaining procedural requests were deferred to the adjudicator at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on events that occurred more than ten years prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued that the recent staying of criminal charges against him constituted a new incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the staying of charges was not an incident of discrimination under the Code and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the ten-year delay.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy.

During a summary hearing convened to address potential delay, the applicant requested to amend the application to change the date of the last incident from May 30, 2012, to December 20, 2012.

The respondent took no position on the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application and directed the respondent to advise whether it agreed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, which culminated in his resignation.

On the first day of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to retain legal counsel, which the Tribunal denied as the applicant had over six months' notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal then addressed the preliminary issue of timeliness.

Finding that the application was filed at least five days after the one-year limitation period expired, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting no medical evidence linked his mental health issues to the late filing.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent is engaged in international and interprovincial trucking, which is a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant provided no evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal found that the business falls within federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.