Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming she was evicted for smoking medical marijuana.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had already adjudicated the eviction and the human rights allegations, concluding the eviction was for a no-fault reason and the landlord fulfilled the duty to accommodate, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing his human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and involved matters of public importance, but primarily made unsupported allegations questioning the adjudicator's integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant was merely upset and disagreed with the decision, failing to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that found a de minimis breach of a settlement agreement but ordered no remedy.

The applicant alleged misinterpretation of the Code, bias, and evidentiary errors.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the case and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of services because the respondent college purchased advertising time during a football game featuring a team with an allegedly offensive name.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no service relationship between the applicant and the respondent, as the applicant was not a student and the respondent merely purchased commercial advertising space during the broadcast.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability and reprisal.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant elected not to testify and failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

Given the lack of evidence and non-compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was dismissed.

A subsequent request by the applicant to withdraw the application was denied given the time and resources already expended.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

Consequently, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on record of offences.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents related to the applicant's job search efforts and mitigation of damages.

The Tribunal found the documents relevant to the applicant's claim for loss of compensation, but narrowed the scope of the request regarding the applicant's personal business to earning statements only.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within seven days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed and disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of harassment and her subsequent attempts to obtain accommodation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate was ongoing within one year of the application being filed, the Tribunal determined the application was timely and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the organizational respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to continue his medical and dental benefits, resulting in a denied claim.

The Tribunal found that a contravention occurred due to an administrative error that caused a lapse in coverage.

However, because the respondent retroactively reinstated the benefits and processed the claim as soon as it became aware of the issue, the Tribunal concluded the breach was de minimis.

The application was allowed, but the Tribunal exercised its discretion to order no remedy.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the reasons for her termination and because she signed under duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish fraudulent misrepresentation because she did not repudiate the agreement or return the severance monies.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant had four days to consider the offer and was advised to seek legal counsel.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and apraxia, alleged discrimination in services after being discharged from Intensive Behavioural Intervention therapy.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his apraxia during assessments, leading to his discharge for lack of progress.

The respondent argued the discharge was a clinical decision not subject to Code review.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that, assuming the allegations to be true, it was not plain and obvious that the respondent did not act contrary to the Code.

The application was allowed to proceed to the next stage.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to exclude numerous witnesses and documents proposed by the applicant, and to compel the production of documents related to the applicant's mitigation of damages.

The Tribunal found that the proposed witnesses and certain documents were not relevant to the central issues of the case and ordered them excluded.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce a complete list of mitigation efforts and an accounting of income earned since his resignation.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking the production of the applicant's medical and financial records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce relevant medical records.

However, because the hearing had been bifurcated, the Tribunal deferred the production of tax and income documents, noting the respondent could renew the request if the application is upheld on its merits.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging termination due to disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive document production from the respondent and third parties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the demands for employment records of other employees overbroad and invasive, the explanation for redacted privileged documents sufficient, and the bald assertion of necessity insufficient to justify third-party disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by his manager during his engagement as a drywall installer.

The respondent requested summary dismissal on the basis of delay, as the alleged incidents occurred between 2007 and October 2014, but the application was not filed until March 2016.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed outside the mandatory one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's ignorance of human rights law did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, and a subsequent internal investigation did not create a series of incidents to bring the allegations within time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

He argued that the summary hearing process breached principles of natural justice because the adjudicator terminated the hearing without allowing him to fully present his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the adjudicator had given the applicant ample opportunity to make relevant submissions and properly focused the hearing on the essential issues.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of natural justice and the applicant was merely attempting to reargue his case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, disability, and sex against his former supervisor.

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

Finding that the application contained no Code-related allegations against the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the date conflicted with the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the respondent had been aware of the date for months.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that it would be highly prejudicial to the respondent to maintain the hearing date when its principal could not attend for religious reasons.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay $4,500 in general damages by the date required in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent acknowledged the oversight and paid the amount 11 days late, immediately upon receiving the Application.

The Tribunal found the 11-day delay constituted a breach of the settlement but concluded it was a de minimis breach.

As the applicant provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress resulting from the minor delay, the Tribunal declined to award compensation and dismissed the Application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a witness list, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal, the applicant still did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.