Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability by the WSIB.

The applicant claimed the WSIB discriminated against him by initially refusing treatment for depression, failing to accommodate his language disability, and finding his depression not compensable.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings, noting that the WSIB and WSIAT have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after it was previously deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance process.

The union confirmed the grievance was resolved.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the s. 45.1 arguments were relevant to whether the application should be dismissed, not whether it should be actively processed.

Finding the request timely and the grievance concluded, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a related union grievance proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance process would not be productive, while the respondents supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped and deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting it was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging a failure to accommodate his medical condition.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts and issues overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondents and the union supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the Application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding regarding unpaid wages and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceeding did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

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

The individual respondents requested that the organizational respondents, Fourth Avenue Medical Centre and Naushad Hoosen Medicine Professional Corporation, be removed as parties, arguing that the former is merely a business style and the latter was incorporated after the events in question.

The applicant conceded that the individual respondents were the only proper parties.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondents removed from the application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to consider whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of a related complaint before the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Both parties confirmed that the OIPRD had decided not to proceed with the applicant's complaint.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate and directed that the application proceed.

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

She subsequently requested an order to add her former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principle that individual respondents should not be added unnecessarily where a corporate respondent is capable of satisfying any remedy and there is no compelling juridical reason to do so.

The Tribunal found no such reason in this case.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a duty of fair representation application and an Occupational Health and Safety Act application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) based on the same facts.

The respondents supported deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the OLRB proceedings dealt with the same facts and issues.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, and reprisal, claiming he was subjected to derogatory comments about his background and forced to resign after a sexual harassment complaint was made against him.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration.

The Tribunal accepted the personal respondent's evidence that the applicant resigned on his own accord and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and age.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the Application to the grievance process.

As no party sought deferral and it was unclear if all human rights issues were part of the grievance or if it would proceed to arbitration, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the Application and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability against her employer and her union.

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

The Tribunal found that the essence of the allegations against the union was a failure to adequately represent her interests in the grievance process, which is a duty of fair representation issue outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction absent evidence of discrimination.

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

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

The respondent Attorney General requested an order removing five personal respondents from the application.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability, could respond to and remedy the complaints, and that there was no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant, a transgender individual, requested an anonymization order and an amendment to their human rights application to increase general damages and add public interest remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the requests.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization order to protect the applicant from potential social stigma and prejudice.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendments, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended the scheduled teleconference.

After waiting 30 minutes with no appearances, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability (menorrhagia) when it disciplined her and ultimately terminated her employment.

The termination followed a breach of a Last Chance Agreement when the applicant went off her designated bus route.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any causal connection between her alleged disability and the work-related misconduct for which she was disciplined and terminated.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but was unable to attend the scheduled hearing dates because she was in Serbia caring for her critically ill mother.

After multiple adjournments and directions from the Tribunal to confirm her return date, the applicant advised that she would not be returning to Canada as planned and did not know when she would return.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's inability to proceed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent's short-term disability carrier required medical forms to be signed by a physician rather than a chiropractor.

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

The Tribunal found that the 'physician only rule' did not constitute discrimination under the Code, as the applicant did not show differential treatment compared to others entitled to the same benefits.

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