Keith Brennenstuhl

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

The Tribunal found that the request did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5, as the applicant presented no new facts, evidence, or case law, but merely disagreed with the original decision and questioned the honesty of the respondents' witnesses.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status, as well as reprisal, regarding the Family Responsibility Office's enforcement of child and spousal support orders.

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

The applicant failed to provide evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected ground, relying instead on general statistics about anti-male bias in family law.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former nursing student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and age after being withdrawn from the program for failing a clinical course twice.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred when the applicant was withdrawn from the program in the spring of 2009, or at the latest on June 16, 2009, when the College clarified he could not proceed to the next semester.

As the application was filed on November 9, 2010, more than one year after the last incident, and the applicant failed to show the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal regarding the respondent corporation's calculation of her condominium fees and the placement of a lien on her unit.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's race or to any intention of reprisal.

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

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

The Tribunal reviewed the request under section 45.7 of the Code and Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Finding that the applicant's submissions merely asserted that the original decision was wrong and unjust, without meeting the strict criteria for reconsideration, the Tribunal dismissed the request.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status regarding the care of her developmentally delayed son.

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

The applicant sought the Tribunal's assistance to supervise or manage the delivery of her son's care and act as his advocate.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that it lacks the jurisdiction to oversee the son's care and can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences following his termination.

The claims regarding age and record of offences were withdrawn or dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the employer was unaware of the applicant's undiagnosed ADHD and sleep apnea at the time of termination.

The decision to terminate the applicant was made for legitimate business reasons during a corporate downsizing.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied.

At the scheduled in-person summary hearing, the applicant's representative appeared but the applicant did not, and the representative could not explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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 had a reasonable prospect of success.

Despite receiving proper notice, the applicant failed to attend the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, asserting the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

After the applicant failed to file a Reply by the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The parties made a joint request to adjourn a scheduled summary hearing five days before it was to commence, in order to consider whether to defer the application to a civil proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its scheduling policies, adjournment requests made more than five days after the notice of hearing require exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the respondent's request to dismiss the application.

The applicant failed to file written submissions within the required timeframe.

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

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

Following the corporate respondent's bankruptcy, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek to lift the stay of proceedings or proceed against the personal respondent.

The applicant failed to respond within the directed timeframe.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to remove a personal respondent, the Director of People Development, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions and had the ability to remedy any potential Code violation.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual, the Tribunal ordered her removed as a respondent.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking particulars prior to a scheduled mediation.

The respondents indicated they might withdraw from mediation if particulars were not provided.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its rules provide for production if mediation fails and that requests for particulars prior to mediation are discouraged.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to confirm whether they intended to participate in the voluntary mediation.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove an individual as a personal respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the individual removed as a respondent and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant requested a further six-month adjournment of the hearing because he had been deported from Canada after his refugee claim was denied and was still awaiting a visa to return.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the events at issue occurred in April 2009, evidence was growing stale, the respondents would face difficulty maintaining witnesses, and the applicant's ability to return to Canada was speculative.

A previous adjournment had also been made peremptory to the applicant.

The applicant, a male nursing student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex after receiving a failing grade in his clinical rotations.

The Tribunal held 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 his own suspicions to connect his failing grade to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents sought production of medical documentation the applicant provided to a third-party disability management company to support her accommodation requests.

The applicant opposed, arguing the respondents did not have access to the file when making their decisions and that it related to a separate long-term disability claim.

The Tribunal ordered production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to evaluating the merits of the accommodation requests.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of documents relating solely to long-term disability until the damages phase of the bifurcated hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of a hearing disability by a shelter, nearly four years after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay in filing was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to being followed by police and lack of cooperation from Legal Aid.

The Tribunal found the explanation vague and lacking in substance, concluding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.