Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondent school board repeatedly refused to provide her with an employment reference in accordance with its policy.

The last refusal occurred in October 2014, but the initial refusal was in June 2006.

The Tribunal held that the repeated refusal to provide a reference did not constitute a continuing contravention of the Code, and the limitation period began running in June 2006.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and concluded it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a Road Service Technician, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability after sustaining two workplace shoulder injuries.

He claimed the respondent forced him to work beyond his medical restrictions, harassed him, and targeted him.

After the applicant's testimony at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting his evasiveness and embellishment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was accommodated with modified duties and failed to establish any link between his alleged mistreatment and his disability, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Hearing and Case Assessment Direction.

These directions required the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

After failing to meet the extended deadline and not communicating with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in employment based on disability filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the production of certain documents agreed to by the respondent, but denied the production of standard workload formulas for other professors, documents relating to speculative changes in employment status, and security records falling under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, over which the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant was provided notice but failed to attend the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a list of witnesses, and a summary of anticipated evidence.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned and an extension of the deadline, the applicant did not file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (dyslexia), claiming he was harassed by co-workers and subsequently terminated following a physical altercation.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars or evidence linking his termination or the alleged harassment to his disability, beyond mere speculation.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming he was terminated without cause.

Prior to this application, the applicant filed a grievance through his union which was referred to arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance and upheld the termination, finding that the applicant's gender had nothing to do with the termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application because the matter was the subject of a concurrent union grievance arbitration procedure under a collective agreement.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the grievance was a policy grievance that did not solely affect her.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the application overlapped with the grievance proceeding, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance filed by the intervenor on behalf of the applicant.

The respondent and intervenor supported deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the facts or law.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The application had previously been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

As the grievance was withdrawn and the respondent did not contest the request, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal, including an allegation that he was terminated for seeking to enforce his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that amending the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of adjudicating the dispute, and issued procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on marital status and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged she was the only employee not in a relationship and was terminated without cause, but failed to link her treatment to her marital status or show she had attempted to enforce a Code right.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the allegations lacked a substantive link to the Code.

During an ongoing hearing for a human rights application, the respondent moved to dismiss the application, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and that the applicant failed to disclose clinical notes and destroyed personal notes.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked the power to dismiss an application as frivolous mid-hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal also found no irremediable prejudice from the late disclosure of clinical notes and no improper motive or relevance regarding the discarded personal notes.

The applicant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against him on the basis of race when it determined he was 100% liable for an automobile accident.

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 beyond his own subjective suspicion to link the liability determination to his race.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness information.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the materials were not filed by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or provide the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

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 general workplace disputes and did not involve claiming or enforcing Code rights.

As the allegations fell outside the scope of section 8, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a casual employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status when the respondent school board did not credit her with seniority for periods she was on maternity leave.

Under the collective agreement, casual employees do not accrue seniority until they become regular employees, at which point they are credited based on actual days worked.

The Tribunal found no discrimination, distinguishing the situation from full-time employees who accrue seniority by the passage of time.

For casual employees, who have no guarantee of hours and can refuse work, seniority is directly linked to the active performance of work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

When both parties failed to comply, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the extended deadline or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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

The request was filed almost three months late, which the applicant attributed to his original request being lost in the mail.

The Tribunal found that even if the delay was in good faith, the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request merely repeated previous allegations and did not present new evidence or demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.