Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

He claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notices were mailed to the address provided by the applicant, were not returned, and that he had received other correspondence at that address.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did receive notice and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability for the personal respondents' actions, could respond to and remedy the complaints, and there was no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals.

The request was granted and the four personal respondents were removed.

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

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the issue and scheduled a half-day in-person hearing to determine whether the application alleges a continuing breach, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and whether substantial prejudice would result from the delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on the basis that the respondents had not forwarded requested documents.

The Tribunal noted that adjournment requests made more than five days after the notice of hearing require exceptional circumstances.

Since the applicant is not required to call evidence at a summary hearing but merely indicate what evidence she will rely upon, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and denied the adjournment request.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel would be out of the country.

The request was made well beyond the Tribunal's five-day limit for rescheduling requests.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the adjournment and noting that the respondent failed to provide alternate dates or explain why the travel plans could not be altered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being terminated from his employment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests to correct its name and remove the personal respondent, but denied its requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and for particulars.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a ground of sex discrimination, but denied his requests to add a new personal respondent and for early production of documents.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts, cite conflicting case law, or identify other factors, concluding that the applicant simply disagreed with the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent school board requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the grievance addressed the same issues raised in the application.

Following the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status, as well as reprisal.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission based on identical factual allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the application on its own initiative under Rule 14.1 pending the conclusion of the federal complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

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 or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal, claiming he was unfairly accused of intimidating a colleague and wrongfully suspended.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to link the alleged mistreatment to the applicant's Japanese origin or any other protected ground.

Finding no obvious nexus to the Code and no valid allegation of reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employer failed to accommodate his lifting restrictions following bypass surgery.

He also alleged his union mishandled his grievance and failed to advance it to arbitration.

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

Finding no evidence or allegation that the union's conduct was based on a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to determine whether the application was filed in time, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and whether substantial prejudice would result.

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

She also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) based on the same facts, as it was unclear whether her employment fell within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the CHRC's determination on jurisdiction to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to determine whether the application alleged a continuing breach, the date of the last incident, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and whether substantial prejudice would result from the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was constructively dismissed when offered a demoted position upon returning from maternity leave.

The respondent argued her previous position was eliminated due to automation and offered her an equivalent role.

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

Finding clear conflicts between the parties regarding the equivalence of the positions and the reasons for the job changes, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, ordering it to proceed to a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant, who is HIV positive, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of disability against a denturist and the College of Denturists.

The dispute arose from the denturist's refusal to provide a full refund and an itemized bill, and the College's handling of the subsequent complaint.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' conduct to his disability.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as abandoned after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued under Rule 26.5(b) that he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the notice was mailed to the address provided by the applicant, was not returned, and the applicant had successfully received other Tribunal correspondence at that same address.