Keith Brennenstuhl

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited the customary time before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had received timely notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed their human rights applications as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to present any new facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence as required by Rule 26.5.

The applicants' allegations of bias against the adjudicator were found to be baseless and merely an expression of disagreement with the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent building owner brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights applications against it.

The applicants alleged harassment and discrimination by security guards while moving out of the apartment building.

The building owner argued the security guards were employees of an independent contractor.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the security guards might be construed as agents of the building owner, as they were enforcing its rules and procedures.

The matter was allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

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

The applicant argued that he was unable to attend because he had to work.

The Tribunal found that choosing to work instead of attending the hearing did not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration, especially given the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and the applicant's history of abandoned applications.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for family and medical reasons.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting it was made well beyond the five-day period following the Notice of Hearing and lacked particulars to establish exceptional circumstances.

The parties were directed to be prepared to address the respondent's request for dismissal at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant, a commercial truck driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his physician reported to the Ministry of Transportation that he consumed six alcoholic beverages a day and noted a possible diagnosis of alcoholism, resulting in the suspension of his license.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that disagreeing with a clinical diagnosis, even if based on an error of fact, does not constitute discrimination under the Code absent additional indicators.

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

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceeding to remove three individual employees as personal respondents to the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that she sought apologies from the individuals and that their conduct was central to her claim of failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability for the employees' actions and was fully capable of remedying any Code infringement found.

The personal respondents were removed as parties.

The respondent franchisor requested an order dismissing the human rights application against it, arguing it had no legal relationship with the employees of the independently owned franchise restaurant where the alleged sexual harassment occurred.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issue of franchisor liability should be determined following evidence and argument at a full hearing.

The respondent franchisor requested an order dismissing the human rights application against it, arguing it had no legal relationship with the employees of the franchisee restaurant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the franchisor's potential liability for the alleged sexual harassment and solicitation should be determined following evidence and argument at a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated business engaged in processing banking transactions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the human rights applications on the basis of abuse of process.

They alleged that the applicant fabricated two will-say statements purportedly written by her co-workers.

After hearing testimony from the co-workers, the applicant's former paralegal, and the applicant herself, the adjudicator found that the applicant had indeed drafted the statements without the co-workers' knowledge or participation.

Concluding that this deliberate fabrication was an extremely serious breach designed to subvert the tribunal's process, the adjudicator dismissed the applications in their entirety.

The respondents requested an extension of time to deliver their list of arguably relevant documents due to summer vacations.

The self-represented applicant objected to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial prejudice, particularly since the hearing was not scheduled until January 2012.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on various grounds.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 35 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled human rights hearing because she was in Serbia caring for her critically ill mother.

The respondents opposed an indefinite adjournment, arguing that delay could cause prejudice due to fading memories.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, cancelled the upcoming hearing dates, and ordered the applicant to provide a status update within three months, while suspending the respondents' pre-hearing obligations.

The applicant in a human rights complaint filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the attendance of William Blair and Mayor Rob Ford at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that Mayor Ford is not a party, no factual allegations were pleaded against either individual, and there was no indication they possessed any relevant knowledge or evidence.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness would be out of the country.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal noted that a witness being out of the country does not normally amount to extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment, especially when the hearing date was set months in advance.

However, because the Tribunal received the request weeks earlier but failed to process it due to an administrative error, proceeding would cause potential unfairness.

The adjournment was therefore granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied entry to a free public reception at a film festival.

The respondents maintained the applicant was denied entry because the venue was at capacity.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidentiary basis or reasonable prospect of connecting the applicant's exclusion from the reception to his alleged disability.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against Mountainview Homes.

Lebasco Corporation filed a response stating it was the applicant's actual employer, providing the employment contract and Record of Employment.

The applicant acknowledged receiving pay stubs from Lebasco.

The Tribunal found it fair, just, and expeditious to add Lebasco Corporation as a respondent to the proceeding.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, filed four separate human rights applications against two respondents relating to the same alleged incident.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicants also requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on medical grounds, supported by a doctor's note recommending they not engage in proceedings for two to three months.

The respondents reluctantly agreed but expressed concern about fading memories.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to September 2011, noting that the matter could not be delayed indefinitely.