Keith Brennenstuhl

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel anticipated a scheduling conflict with a Superior Court trial.

The request was made more than 14 days after the notice of hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a potential scheduling conflict does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling policies.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination based on age, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, and sex brought a motion for the production of various documents.

The requested documents included email correspondence between her former supervisor and the respondent's Vice President, documents given to the HR Manager, documents relating to her replacement, and documents from a previous human rights complaint against the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the requests to be overly broad, speculative, engaging the privacy interests of non-parties, or irrelevant to the applicant's specific allegations.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the applicant developed medical restrictions, and the employer accommodated her by adjusting her schedule, moving her to the day shift, and creating a custom work station.

After the applicant went on an indefinite medical leave, her physician eventually confirmed she was permanently unfit to return to work.

The Tribunal found that the employer's duty to accommodate ended when the applicant was permanently unable to fulfill the basic obligations of her employment, establishing undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a water operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being disciplined for refusing to clean washrooms at his workplace.

He claimed that as a Sri Lankan, he had a cultural sensitivity to cleaning washrooms and that he was the only operator required to perform this duty.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the requirement to clean washrooms to the applicant's heritage, and evidence showed that cleaning was a standard duty for all water operators.

The applicant, a cook at a bilingual daycare centre, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry and place of origin because she was regularly addressed in French and could not speak the language.

The respondents sought summary dismissal on the basis that language is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of fluency in French was not sufficiently linked to her ancestry or place of origin, and dismissed the application as 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 without explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his provincial offences proceeding for a speeding ticket.

The applicant argued that re-activation was warranted because the Ontario Court of Justice had adjourned the provincial offences proceeding pending the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original deferral decision and denied the request to re-activate, noting that the reasons for deferral remained germane.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She alleged that the adjudicator accepted false evidence, violated the law, and abused his judicial powers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that there were other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application pending the determination of a related civil claim filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the civil claim raised the same circumstances and overlapping issues.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race by the police and her employers.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking her alleged mistreatment to her race, relying instead on speculation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against one respondent, Black & MacDonald, because the events occurred more than one year prior to filing.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to a fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal held that fear of reprisal does not generally amount to a good faith basis for delay, especially since the applicant had pursued a WSIB claim during the same period.

The application against Black & MacDonald was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

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

The applicant filed submissions stating the last incident occurred later than initially indicated.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine whether the application was filed in time or if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to fail to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed supplementary materials specifying the ground of alleged discrimination as disability.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and ordered that the application proceed and be served on the respondents.

The applicant, a Black high school student, alleged racial discrimination by his school board regarding a five-day suspension for physical contact with a teacher and his participation in an entrepreneurship program.

At the conclusion of the applicant's evidence during the hearing, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only speculation and subjective feelings, failing to establish any link between his race and the suspension or his withdrawal from the entrepreneurship program.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration process.

After the arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no discrimination, the applicant sought to proceed with the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration was another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

Finding no active WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal declined to defer the matter and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The allegations arose after the applicant was disciplined for posting anti-Muslim comments on a course discussion board and for disruptive behaviour during a group assignment.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal assessed whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the allegations were an attempt to enforce a perceived right to make anti-Muslim comments.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success on any ground and dismissed the application.

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

The parties consented to an order deferring the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral in accordance with the parties' consent.

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

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, alleging that the applicant had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had never filed a complaint with the Commission.

The request for early dismissal was denied, and the respondents were directed to file a full response.