Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability arising from an administrative transfer.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance regarding the same transfer, which was settled between the union and the employer.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tribunal Vice-chair, alleging discrimination arising from a previous adjudicative decision.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, raising issues of judicial immunity and whether adjudicative decisions constitute 'services' under the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of issues to be addressed at the hearing by finding some allegations out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its Rules, a reconsideration request may only be made in respect of a final decision.

Because the interim decision did not finally dispose of the rights of either party, the request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary Quality and Risk Applications Specialist, alleged she was subjected to sex discrimination when her manager required her to complete a business plan, a task she claimed her male colleagues were not required to do.

Her employment was terminated during her probationary period due to performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the business plan requirement was a common practice at the hospital applied to all Application Specialists regardless of gender.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish that her gender was a factor in the employer's requirements or decisions.

The applicant, a former shift supervisor, alleged age discrimination after his employment was terminated following the closure of the respondent's Burlington facility.

He claimed his age was a factor in his termination and in the respondent's failure to hire him for other positions at its Hamilton facility.

The Tribunal found that all salaried employees at the Burlington facility were terminated regardless of age.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that age was a factor in the respondent's hiring decisions at the Hamilton facility, or that he was qualified for the positions filled by others.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, and reprisal, arising from a co-worker's conduct.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the reprisal claim.

Regarding the discrimination claims, the Tribunal concluded that the co-worker's actions, including brushing up against the applicant, were innocuous or the result of a personality clash in a confined workspace.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the allegations amounted to a general employment dispute with no nexus to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-2007 allegations due to delay, finding the applicant did not establish good faith.

The Tribunal also struck new allegations from 2009, as they were not part of the original complaint.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the 2007 allegations under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that while the related grievances were settled, the settlements did not deal with the substance of the human rights claims.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents as parties because the organizational respondent accepted liability.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying complaint was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, with the last incident occurring in September 2006.

The complaint was filed in November 2007.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

He submitted further evidence to argue that the Landlord and Tenant Board did not appropriately deal with the substance of his application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained earlier and would not have changed the result, and that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents also sought to strike the applicant's reprisal claim because she did not check the 'Reprisal' box on her original Commission complaint form.

The Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, finding that the factual narrative in the original complaint clearly raised the issue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the s. 45.1 request, concluding that the employment standards officer's decision did not address the duty to accommodate or discrimination under the Code.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Commission.

During a hearing on the respondents' request to dismiss the application, it emerged that the parties had signed Minutes of Settlement and a full and final release in March 2007.

The Tribunal found that the voluntary settlement and release were binding, even without Commission approval under the former s. 43.

As the parties had agreed to end the complaint, it was not 'continued' within the meaning of s. 53(5), and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association Occasional Teachers – Halton Elementary Unit requested to intervene in a human rights application filed by a member alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents supported the request, and the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by bargaining unit members.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability regarding his eviction from a rental unit.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the Board had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, having heard the same discrimination arguments and found no discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

A Notice of Hearing was sent to the applicant, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondents were present.

In the absence of the applicant and any explanation for the non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After developing an undiagnosed illness that caused seizures and exhaustion, the applicant was directed by her employer to take a leave of absence.

When she returned to work after finding effective medication, the employer disabled her computer and sent a letter directing her not to return until she was completely free of the illness.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated due to her disability in violation of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $71,623.89 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, an Operational Manager, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he was denied a performance award because he did not meet the 12-week active work eligibility requirement due to a WSIB leave.

The applicant argued that the policy was discriminatory because leaves mandated by the Employment Standards Act (such as pregnancy and parental leaves) were counted towards the eligibility period.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the performance award was a compensation benefit tied to work performed.

The Tribunal held that following the statutory requirements of the Employment Standards Act to count certain leaves does not make the failure to count WSIB leaves discriminatory.

The applicant, a real estate sales agent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (Crohn's disease) after being removed from a new home sales site due to frequent lateness and an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have an employment relationship with the builder, Monarch Corporation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that neither the broker, PMA Brethour Real Estate, nor Monarch knew or ought to have known about the applicant's disability.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a black man of Caribbean origin, alleged that his termination from employment during a company downsizing was discriminatory based on his race, colour, and place of origin.

He argued that as the most senior member of his team, he should not have been the first to be terminated.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision was based on legitimate work-related factors, including the applicant's past refusal to perform assigned tasks, and that there was no evidence to infer discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, seeking to introduce a further medical report and typewritten notes as new evidence under Rule 25.5(a).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant provided no explanation as to why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier for the Case Resolution Conference.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that even if the evidence had been admitted, it would not have altered the original decision.

The applicant, a plumber employed by the respondent university, alleged that he experienced differential treatment in his employment due to a disability (stress).

The applicant claimed he was overlooked for promotion, transferred, demoted, denied overtime, and unfairly questioned regarding a medical note.

The Tribunal first removed the personal respondents from the proceedings, as the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that he was treated differently from other employees in similar circumstances.

The evidence showed that the applicant disagreed with workplace policies, such as the requirement for specific medical notes and the formula for sharing overtime, but this did not amount to discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed.