Keith Brennenstuhl

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416 filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the application engages the collective agreement.

Neither party opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a union generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by a bargaining unit employee.

The corporate respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the personal respondent's conduct was central to the matter.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was capable of remedying any human rights violations and that there was no compelling reason to keep the personal respondent as a party.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondent school board and several individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was beyond its jurisdiction, as the applicant only raised concerns about unethical and unfair behaviour without linking them to age or reprisal.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The respondents requested an extension of time to provide available dates for the hearing because the corporate respondent's representative was out of the office.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to all parties to provide their available dates.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application and amend the monetary relief sought.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the personal respondent.

Having received proof that the criminal proceedings were completed, the Tribunal re-activated the application.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her damages claim for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect from $10,000 to $25,000, noting it was early in the process and there were no new allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a final 10-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Office of the Umpire, alleging discrimination in services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federal government agency.

The applicant failed to provide intelligible submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Office of the Umpire is a federal agency responsible for managing Employment Insurance proceedings and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel had to travel abroad to tend to an ailing mother.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that a medical emergency involving a close family member constitutes an exceptional circumstance.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions merely expressed disagreement with the original decision and did not address any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of family status after the respondents expelled her three children from their child care centre.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding subsidized daycare costs and safety concerns did not relate to her family status, which is defined as being in a parent and child relationship.

As the applicant failed to establish a link between the respondents' actions and her family status, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel had to travel abroad to tend to an ill mother.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the adjournment, noting that a medical emergency involving a close family member constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application against the respondent insurance company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely disagreed with the original conclusions and failed to establish any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant alleged bias, disagreed with the adjudicator's findings of fact, and submitted a newspaper article as new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and noting that disagreement with factual findings is not a proper basis for reconsideration.

The Tribunal also concluded that the new evidence would not have altered the original result.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to a reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code after participating in a co-worker's grievance arbitration hearing.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege any facts within the scope of section 8, as there was no evidence that the grievance arbitration related to Code-protected human rights.

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

The applicant, a temporary employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after he was not hired permanently and was laid off.

He also alleged that he was insulted by co-workers.

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

The applicant failed to provide any evidence or particulars connecting his failure to obtain a permanent position or the alleged insults to his place of origin.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, colour, disability, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race in relation to an insurance claim for water damage to his property.

The respondent insurance company maintained it handled the claim in accordance with the policy.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own certitude to connect the respondent's conduct to any prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant failed to dial in or contact the Tribunal to explain his absence, while the respondent was in attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel was diagnosed with a critical illness and hospitalized.

The Tribunal found this constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The request was granted and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment, noting that the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the grievance's resolution.

Both the union and the respondent subsequently advised that the grievance proceeding was complete, as the union chose not to refer the matter to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it was no longer necessary to defer the application and directed the respondent to file its Response.

The respondents requested an order to defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of a related grievance.

The applicant, who alleged he was dismissed from his employment because of a disability, did not file a reply to the request.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were clearly related to the ongoing grievance and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.