Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and related grounds after being stopped by police for allegedly speeding.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred until the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing provincial offences proceeding regarding the speeding ticket.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap between the issues before the court and the Tribunal, to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required time and failed to comply with a subsequent Tribunal direction to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived their right to participate in the proceedings, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the early production of documents and the production of job descriptions for four personal respondents ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for job descriptions, finding them irrelevant to the test for removing personal respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early production, noting that the standard 14-day disclosure rule for summary hearings applied and the applicant provided no compelling reason to deviate from it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to remove a recording of the hearing from YouTube, provide a copy to the Tribunal and respondent, and cease using inflammatory rhetoric.

Instead, the applicant continued to use unnecessary, inflammatory, and racist rhetoric in her written submissions and made further ultimatums.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written and oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, an Aboriginal woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and contracts by a car dealership and its owner.

The applicant had leased a vehicle and fell behind on payments.

The personal respondent sent a letter terminating the lease, threatening criminal charges for fraud and theft, and stating 'Typical Indian' in reference to her failure to pay.

The Tribunal found the initial refusal to lease was out of time under s. 34 of the Code.

However, the Tribunal held that the letter constituted serious discrimination based on Aboriginal ancestry, relying on harmful stereotypes.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but declined to order a requested $10,000 donation to a health foundation.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent denied her request for financial assistance to obtain a criminal pardon.

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

The Tribunal concluded that it would be premature to dispose of the application at this stage and directed that the matter proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, a 48-year-old karate student with a hip replacement, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after he was not promoted to the orange belt level.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence, beyond bald assertions, linking the failure to be awarded the belt to his age or disability.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase her damages claim to $50,000 and add new allegations.

The request was made one month prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that allowing the amendment at this late stage would prejudice the respondent by requiring an amended response and further preparation, and would likely necessitate an adjournment.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, and marital status after being terminated during her probationary period.

During the hearing, the adjudicator assessed whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's evidence, which included complaints about nepotism, workplace rules, and alleged sabotage, failed to establish any link to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment that led to her early retirement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant retired, which was more than three years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the union's decision not to pursue her grievance constituted a new incident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to both parties.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent attended the hearing.

The adjudicator waited for 50 minutes and, in the absence of any explanation, dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have waived its right to participate.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled at the applicant's request.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, and age.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal cancelled the scheduled preliminary hearing without prejudice to the respondents' right to raise preliminary issues at the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule mediation as agreed by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his work-related injuries.

The Tribunal raised the issue of deferring the application because the applicant had a pending appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the same modified work and medical restrictions.

Finding considerable overlap in the issues and with the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB/WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal culminating in the termination of her employment.

The respondents sought dismissal based on a release executed by the applicant.

The applicant argued the release was conditional and unenforceable, noting she had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal where the release's status would be determined.

Both parties agreed deferral was appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the court in the civil action makes a final determination regarding the enforceability of the release.

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

Two respondents filed Responses, but the third respondent failed to file a Response within the required time.

He requested an extension but failed to copy the other respondents.

The Tribunal ordered him to file a Response and an explanation within ten days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him.

The respondent sought to strike allegations of incidents prior to April 2011 as untimely and to defer the application pending a grievance.

The Tribunal ruled that the application is restricted to the timely allegations from October 2010 to August 2011, but evidence of prior incidents may be admitted for context at the hearing.

The request to defer was denied because the grievance had been withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the issues in both proceedings overlapped significantly.