Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline and indicated in writing that they would not be filing any documents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5, and provided a final deadline of October 11, 2016 to file their responses along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement by counting disability-related absences as personal emergency leave days.

On the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal issued a consent order allowing the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice to her right to bring a future section 34 application regarding the legal question of whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days.

The Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as untimely.

The applicant relied on Rule 26.5(d), arguing that other factors outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made no meaningful or relevant submissions to support this ground and merely disagreed with the earlier decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision over two years after the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no explanation for the inordinate delay and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The request for reconsideration was denied on the basis of delay alone.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing that the applicant had signed a termination letter releasing the corporate respondent from further obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the language in the termination letter drafted by the respondent was ambiguous and did not explicitly release claims under the Human Rights Code.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding unequal pay, discovered after she was terminated.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for severance.

The Tribunal found that the release was unambiguous, the applicant had independent legal advice, and the broad language of the release covered all claims, known or unknown, arising from her employment.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The application was deferred pending a union grievance, which was subsequently settled.

The applicant sought to reactivate the application.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and the applicant was bound by its resolution.

The applicant, a former teacher, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, and several of its officers.

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 related to unfair representation and failure to file grievances, but lacked any factual foundation connecting the union's actions to a Code-protected ground.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the applicant had not asserted a Code right.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant failed to deliver and file documents, a witness list, and witness statements as ordered in a previous reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability with respect to services.

The application was filed four years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to his involvement in other legal proceedings and his disability.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal proceedings does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay, and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence showing his disability prevented him from filing.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and disability, as well as reprisal, after being removed from the supply list for refusing an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the disability discrimination claim to proceed.

The Union was also granted intervenor status.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include additional allegations regarding lack of accommodation, systemic discrimination, and expanded remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to lack of accommodation for a permanent job, assertions made by the respondent, and expanded remedies including reinstatement and damages.

The Tribunal denied the request to add allegations regarding a gradual onset injury as it was outside the one-year limitation period, and denied the addition of systemic discrimination claims as they did not address the fundamental issue of individual accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide current contact information for one of the personal respondents, who had moved, or advise if she wished to proceed without him.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that she did not want to add the individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision removing the individual as a personal respondent and amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination related to her termination.

She also filed a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding potential delay, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the significant risk of inconsistent findings, noting the substantial overlap in the subject matter of the two proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

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

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had, in fact, filed a request for an extension of time on the deadline date.

Finding that the applicant did not intend to abandon the application, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, reinstated the application, and set a new deadline for the applicant to provide his documents and witness list.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after her landlord denied a transfer request and subsequently evicted her.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the denial of the transfer or the eviction to her disability or receipt of public assistance.

The eviction was ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board due to the illegal activities of the applicant's son.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's decision to reduce the applicant's social assistance payments to recover a 2002 overpayment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence, beyond mere speculation, to link the recovery of the overpayment to his race or any other protected ground.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide required materials, including documents, a witness list, and witness statements, by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not respond to the respondents' requests for orders.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.